1. education
2. school

EDUCATIONAL
PLANNING
Vol. 16 No. 2
The Journal of the International Society for Educational Planning
PROMOTING THE STUDY AND PRACTICE OF EDUCATIONAL PLANNING
EDUCATIONAL PLANNING
A JOURNAL DEDICATED TO PLANNING, CHANGE, REFORM, AND THE
IMPROVEMENT OF EDUCATION
VOLUME 16
NUMBER 2
2007
Preface .................................................................................................................................ii
About The Authors ..............................................................................................................iii
Organizational Learning Mechanisms and Leadership Succession: Key Elements of Planned
School Change.
Chen Schechter and Ilana Tishler........................................................................... 1
Planning for School Improvement: Closing the Gap of Culture with Democratic Principles
Barbara J. Mallory and Charles A. Reavis............................................................. 8
The Role of Planning in the School Improvement Program.
Robert H. Beach and Ronald A. Lindahl............................................................... 19
No Leader Left Behind: Planning to Prepare Effective Educational Leaders in this Era of
Accountability
Peter Litchka......................................................................................................... 44
Invitation to Submit Manuscripts........................................................................................ 53
Invitation to Fall Conference .............................................................................................. 54
Membership Application .................................................................................................... 55
i
Vol. 16, No. 2
PREFACE
Linda K. Lemasters
Inside of this sixteenth volume, the second issue, are four articles related to planning and
change. Once more there are several persons that are due appreciation for their assistance with
getting the journal ready for publication. First and foremost would be Glen Earthman. He
has continued to make sure that the printing and mailing are done in an effective and timely
manner. Most importantly, he is always nearby for advice and consultation. The Editorial
Review Board assisted with the juried reviews, as well as two guest reviewers: Carleton Holt
and Tim Toops.
I especially would like to thank the authors of the articles; they accepted the suggestions of the
reviewers and revised their work in a very timely manner. Appreciation goes out as well to the
ISEP Board and the membership for their support and willingness to help.
Please review the work that is featured in this issue. Those readers who are teaching in
leadership programs especially may be interested in the article by Bob Beach and Ron Lindahl.
These authors have thoroughly examined the approaches to educational planning and effectively
linked the models to the school improvement process. Although it was not a planned issue on
the school improvement process, Barbara Mallory and Charles Reavis had submitted their
document on the potential for sustained school improvement within schools and its dependency
on a democracy-centered school culture. I am not sure which document I would read first, but
they certainly compliment one other.
Chen Schechter and Ilana Tischler begin their document with a classic example of what
leadership practitioners face daily in our schools—leadership succession. Mid-management
and building leaders constantly have this challenge, and it is appropriate that a journal with
emphasis on planning would address this problem. Peter Litchka’s article provides us with
the very practical reminder that leadership succession is just one of the challenges that the
educational professional must be willing to face—and just one of the myriad of potential
reasons that recruitment into the profession may be so difficult.
This journal is a venue in which we would like to showcase meaningful research on planning
and change. The International Society of Educational Planning encourages the readership to
submit their research documents and articles. School leadership is experiencing success in
student achievement because of planning and making changes based on strategic thinking. We
need to get this word out, as certainly all of us are bombarded with the news when success is
not achieved.
There is another line of reasoning that I have considered over the past few months while reading
articles for this journal as well as the NCPEA yearbook. My thought processes were culminated
when I reread Joseph Jaworski’s Synchronicity: The inner path of leadership. We talk about
planning, teach the models, and exhibit the processes in our business and professional lives.
Our students and colleagues, however, should not get the idea that this is simply a mechanical
process. We want them to know that planning for sustainability, strategic thinking, and strategic
action is all very “subtle” or, as Jaworski stated, “...the most subtle territory of leadership.”
What we are doing is attempting to create the conditions for predictable outcomes, or in some
cases (again, as Jaworski suggested) “predictable miracles.”
The authors have added to the body of knowledge in planning and change. The journal will
continue to pursue this topic, as this pursuit is essential for continuous improvement and deep,
meaningful, sustained change. It has been a pleasure to work with the authors and reviewers;
please enjoy the product of our collective efforts.
Educational Planning
ii
About the Editor
Linda Lemasters is an associate professor and Program Advisor for the Masters/EdS in
Educational Leadership and Administration, Department of Educational Leadership, Graduate
School of Education and Human Development at The George Washington University. She has
collaborated with Glen Earthman on a textbook and numerous articles and is editor of the 2007
Yearbook for the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration: At the tipping
point: Navigating the course for the preparation of educational administrators.
ABOUT THE GUEST REVIEWERS
Carleton Holt, EdD, has served as a band director, coach, and school administrator in the public
schools in Iowa and South Dakota for over thirty years. He has had articles published by
the Educational Research Quarterly and School Business Affairs. In addition, he is the
author of a textbook for educational leaders entitled School Board Success: A Strategy for
Building America’s Schools. ([email protected])
Timothy R. Toops, EdD, is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Division of Education at
Florida Southern College. He is in demand as a speaker is in the field of reading and
curriculum; however, as a former teacher, principal, superintendent, and consultant from
the State of Ohio, he has significant expertise in leadership. ([email protected])
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Robert H. Beach and Ronald A. Lindahl are professors in Alabama State University’s Doctoral
Program in Educational Leadership, Policy, and Law. They have worked in educational
settings in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, England, Spain, and Malawi. Over
the past 20 years, they have authored numerous articles and book chapters on educational
planning. ([email protected] and [email protected])
Peter R. Litchka is an Assistant Professor of Education at Loyola College in Maryland, where
he is also the Director of Graduate Program in Administration and Supervision. He has
more than 34 years of service in education, including being a teacher, director, assistant
superintendent and a superintendent of schools in two districts. ([email protected])
Barbara J. Mallory is an assistant professor at Georgia Southern University in the Educational
Leadership Program. She is a retired high school principal from North Carolina, who now
teaches in the principal preparation program at GSU. ([email protected])
Charles A. Reavis is Goizueta Visiting Professor and Director of the Georgia Center for
Educational Renewal.
Chen Schechter, Ph.D., is at the Department of Educational Administration and Policy, School
of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel. His main research interests are
organizational learning, educational policy, educational change, educational leadership,
organizational theory, system thinking. ([email protected])
Ilana Tischler, Ph.D., an elementary school principal, Netanya, Israel. Her main research
interests are leadership, leadership succession, and educational change.
iii
Vol. 16, No. 2
ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING MECHANISMS AND LEADERSHIP SUCCESSION:
KEY ELEMENTS OF PLANNED SCHOOL CHANGE
Chen Schechter
Ilana Tischler
ABSTRACT
The growing complexity of schoolwork in the current turbulent and unstable environment requires
schools to plan for both structural and pedagogical changes. Planning for school change, however, has
been increasingly hindered by leadership succession that dramatically affects organizational stability.
Although a common phenomenon in our competitive educational realm, leadership succession during
school change process has been under-explored. This article illuminates both processes of leadership
succession and Organizational Learning Mechanisms (OLMs) as key elements in planned school change.
It is argued that institutionalizing OLMs (arenas where knowledge can be analyzed and shared by
individual members and then become the property of the entire organization through dissemination and
changes in standard routines and procedures) can support the development and retention of a school’s
memory; thus sustaining the change efforts subsequent to the departure of the original reformer(s).
INTRODUCTION
Seven years ago, the owner landscaped the place. He wanted a no-maintenance garden with beauty
bark, perennials, and shrubs. Three years later he moved, just as the garden was beginning to develop.
The next owners, avid gardeners, wanted a Victorian garden with flowers galore. They ripped out shrubs,
got rid of the beauty bark, and planted more flowers. They stayed two years, and then I moved in. I
wanted a no-maintenance, shrub-and-flower garden. Over the past two years, I’ve planted some of the
same shrubs as the first owner had, brought in a little beauty bark, dispensed with some of the flowers
the second owner put in, and planted a few more perennials. Had we been able to coordinate the garden
design (which, of course, we could not) the whole thing would be lushly full by now. (Wasley, 1992, p.
65)
Leadership succession is gaining attention as a significant factor affecting organizational performance
and student achievement. Leadership succession becomes even more critical as educational systems
place a higher value on change processes that influence the entire school community (Brock & Grady,
1995). Nevertheless, this transition period in the leadership role heightens organizational members’ sense
of uncertainty, which limits the ability to implement change (Cuban, 2001). An important way to help
administrators and teachers overcome their sense of uncertainty can be careful planning. Guskin (1996)
stresses the importance of planning a transition, rather that just letting it happen, suggesting that we
should “plan a brief leadership transition period beginning with the previous [principal]’s announcement
of intention to leave, allowing the institution to acknowledge its loss, and setting the stage for healthy,
productive new relationships (p. 12). This is especially important during times of change. In order to
maintain the change, learning patterns should be ingrained in the organizational culture, pedagogical
practices, and leadership. Yet, such qualitative patterns are complicated and often compromised by the
occurrence of leadership transition during the change process.
Many studies in education deal with change processes and leadership. The actual leadership
succession during a change process, however, is under-explored. Thus, there is still a gap in the specific
area of the impact of leadership succession on an ongoing school change process. More specifically, the
literature that does exist is more commonly centered on executive transitions in public organizations. In
the field of education, there has been some limited research on superintendent transitions and teachers’
perceptions of succession. This literature, however, tends to focus on the process of searching for new
leadership, the organizational effects of leadership succession, and the different reasons for a transition
in the leadership role (e.g., retirement, board dissatisfaction), rather than on the transition phase itself. It
appears, then, that a neglected but important subject of inquiry is the question of how a successful change
can be sustained subsequent to the departure of the original reformer.
1
Vol. 16, No. 2
Our basic assumption is that the majority of change processes do not take the transition period fully
into consideration, not only from the logistic perspective, but also from the knowledge management
perspective that supports the retention of an organization’s professional excellence while building an
institutional memory. Thus, the lack of attention paid to the period of leadership transition represents a
critical omission of an important process during times of school change.
This article introduces both concepts of leadership succession and organizational learning
mechanisms (OLMs) as key elements in the context of school change. Both concepts are explained,
followed by some suggestions for theorizing the interrelationships between leadership succession and
OLMs. Finally, further inquiry regarding these interrelated processes is suggested.
LEADERSHIP SUCCESSION
Leadership succession is the actual transition period, during which one school principal takes over
the position of another. Fox and Lippitt found that one of the main “[d]ifficulties that mitigates against
the most effective involvement of the state organization included rapid turnover in leadership” (1967, p.
2). Similarly, Hargreaves and Fink (2000), 33 years later, reviewed two schools’ failure to sustain their
innovative character, and found that “both schools experienced problems with leadership succession” (p.
30). These problems in leadership succession are due to the creation of other forces of change (Kirkland,
1991), as well put by Miskel and Cosgrove:
Succession is a disruptive event that changes the line of communication and relationships of
power, effects decision making, and generally disturbs the equilibrium on normal activities. During
the succession period, relationships are formed and negotiated, expectations between parties
are confirmed or disconfirmed, conflicts may be confronted and resolved, and new leaders are
accommodated or not in their work role and the new environment. (cited in Hart, 1991, p. 452)
It appears, then, that leadership succession is a complex process encompassing both individual and
organizational features. Thus, whether a leader’s departure is long anticipated, or announced as he or she
walks out the door, it is a dynamic, often a disruptive, event for those who remain (Briggs, 2000).
Leadership succession can dramatically affect organizational stability. In fact, changes in
leadership are commonly used to initiate educational changes. Concurrently, Wasley (1992) suggested
that leadership succession can impede a change process already underway, arguing that “good efforts
at change are dismantled and a new plan constructed, only to be taken apart when the next leadership
transition occurs” (p. 64). Thus, there is a link between the concepts of leadership succession and
educational change. So, what are the organizational strategies used to cope with transition and change?
Sheppard and Brown (1999) argued that a precondition for successful change is that principals initiate
structures that encourage distributed collaborative leadership. These structures, routines, and behavioral
regularities, based on information processing, become a source of stability and change during leadership
succession.
SCHOOL LEARNING MECHANISMS
School capacity for innovation and reform relies on its ability to collectively process, understand,
and apply knowledge about teaching and learning (Louis, 1994). This argument is supported by Spender
and Grant’s (1996) criticism of schools’ over-emphasis on what should be learned, instead of the process
of knowledge acquisition, creation, dissemination and integration. Focusing on gathering and processing
information within and between schools, according to Barnes (2000), requires establishing opportunities
for teachers to collectively think and share information on a sustained basis. Therefore, schools need to
establish “system structures, processes and practices that facilitate continuous [collective] learning of all
its members” (Silins & Mulford, 2002, p. 444).
With this said, Huber (1991), Marquardt (1996) and DiBella, Nevis, and Gould (1996) classified
five phases of the information processing (learning) cycle: (a) information acquisition: the process of
obtaining knowledge. This includes experiential learning (organizational experiments, organizational
self-appraisal, such as action research), vicarious learning in which organizations attempt to learn
from strategies and technologies of other organizations, grafting-recruiting new members who possess
knowledge that is not available to the organization, and searching and noticing the environment; (b)
Educational Planning
2
information distribution: the process of sharing information that leads to understanding; (c) information
interpretation: the process in which the distributed information is given meaning. The more learning,
the more interpretations are developed; (d) organizational memory: the processes and means by which
organizational experiences are stored and coded into organizational memory; and, (e) retrieving
information from memory for organizational use.
Although these five phases of information processing are ordered progressively, learning is perceived
as a cyclical and interactive process. To operationalize organizational systems from an information
processing perspective, Popper and Lipshitz (1998, 2000) have proposed a structural approach to
organizational learning. The structural approach posits that organizational learning entails the existence
of Organizational Learning Mechanisms (OLMs) that are structural and procedural institutionalized
arrangements for collecting, analyzing, storing, and disseminating information that is relevant to the
performance of the organization and its members (see also DiBella, Nevis & Gould, 1996; Huber, 1991;
Marquardt, 1996). OLMs are concrete arenas where knowledge can be analyzed and shared by individual
members and then become the property of the entire organization through dissemination and changes
in standard routines and procedures. The structures and processes of OLMs serve as an analogue to the
individual nervous system and explain how the organization can learn in a non-metaphorical and nonparadoxical way (Lipshitz & Popper, 2000). Consequently, learning around OLMs relates learning by
individual members to learning by organizations.
Beyond the scope of this manuscript, there are various barriers to OLMs based on collective information processing. For example, an important barrier can emerge when organizational OLMs are
controlled by higher levels in the hierarchy, using them as a leverage to sustain power and status-quo.
Information processing through OLMs also can blind an effective scanning of the environment and produce blindness that may result in crisis (Nystrom & Starbuck, 1984).
LEADERSHIP SUCCESSION AND OLMS
Leadership succession and OLMs are important and interrelated processes, however, often
unexplored, especially in light of renewal efforts. Therefore, exploring these processes may contribute
to the field of planned educational change. With this said, below are some suggestions for theorizing the
interrelated processes of leadership succession and OLMs.
Integrative structures (e.g., weekly grade-level meetings) that enable a process of collaboration are
essential for effective leadership succession (Galbraith, 1977; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Lipshitz &
Popper, 2000). Going through a transition period in leadership, it should be relatively easier to implement
and sustain change programs when information is scanned, interpreted, and shared by the majority of
members (Ellis & Maidan, 1997). Especially at times of administrative turnover, organizations with a
high intensity of using structural learning mechanisms, when they are systematic, participative, flexible,
and dynamic (Bell, 2002), show more shared knowledge (congruence among members’ mental models)
that reflects the message of change. In this regard, peer observations, monthly departmental meetings
according to subject areas, monthly whole faculty meetings, and monthly meetings of teachers with the
subject’s superintendent, to mention only a few learning mechanisms, form the basic building blocks for
the successful continuity of school change through the leadership transition. In other words, learning
spaces, based on professional discourse, create a collective memory that has a more powerful impact
on organizational members than the often turbulent period of leadership-administrative succession. As
OLMs represent a distributed knowledge throughout the entire organization, rather than confined to
a central location of one (e.g., principal) particular knowledge system (Walsh & Ungson, 1991), the
information shared by teachers represents qualities of schools. Similarly, studying leadership succession
at the school level reflects the continuous attempts to break out from analyzing a school’s members and
functions as isolated to capturing the dynamic and interrelated school processes embedded within the
complex phase of leadership succession. In this way, perceiving the interrelated processes of leadership
succession and OLMs as school level attributes represents the need to approach school change from a
more holistic and participative perspective.
Principals are key players in introducing reflexive spaces-forums-mechanisms into the ongoing
school structure. Whereas schools are still perceived to operate according to hierarchical and rational
3
Vol. 16, No. 2
bureaucratic models (Sheppard & Brown, 1999), OLMs in schools demands leadership that “is about
learning together and constructing meaning and knowledge collectively and collaboratively” (Lambert,
1998, p. 5). Principals need to establish OLMs (time and space) that systematically continue after the
principal initiator is no longer around. In other words, principals need to conduct ongoing learning
processes within the staff that continue after the transition. In this way, innovative practices are less
affected by the transition because teachers’ knowledge and shared memory with regard to organizational
practices become the infrastructure of the reform.
The transition should be communicated, explained, and prepared ahead of time. Each individual
in the school must be treated as a unique person experiencing a significant change in his or her own
professional life. The new leader should meet with the staff on a regular basis, and discuss the main
issues each individual experiences before and after the transition process, on the personal as well as the
professional level. Such discussions act as a valuable source of information for the staff and for the new
leader alike.
There should be a mandated overlap period for any transition in leadership position. The time of
overlap may vary, anywhere from two weeks to two months, depending on the circumstances. Even
when the leader is fired, he or she is still expected, and even obligated as part of the contract, to properly
hand the leadership to the new leader. The baseline assumption is that the transition period has a major
impact on the organization, and as such must be handled with care in order to create the most efficient
process toward nurturing the school memory. In doing so, an overlap period prevents time and cost
involved in starting over ‘from scratch.’ It is recommended that the predecessor and the successor be on
site together during a transition, helping to clarify the process for both the leaders and the faculty.
PHASES OF LEADERSHIP SUCCESSION DURING PERIODS OF SCHOOL CHANGE
The following phases are suggested as a means of nurturing the school memory during times of
change. These phases cannot be perceived as linear, but rather as symbiotic and closely interrelated.
• Introduction of systematic and participative modes of collective learning based on information
processing;
• An initial change process, categorized by principal's modeling of how to approach and express
the new knowledge. The information pertaining to the change is shared and analyzed in concrete
arenas of OLMs and then becomes the property of the entire organization through dissemination
and changes in standard routines and procedures. Thus, OLMs create a collective memory of
the building blocks of the reform;
• A transition period that includes preparation for the actual transfer of authority. The new leader
has to learn about the history, values, traditions and assumptions of the 'old' school by inquiring
into the standard routines and procedures before, during, and after the overlap period; and,
• A post-transition period featuring continuity and alteration of school culture and pedagogical
practices as communicated through OLMs.
The phases, as described above, enable the school to sustain its successful reform, while staying open to
new and alternative ideas as communicated by the new leadership through OLMs.
CONCLUSION AND FURTHER EXPLORATION
School change efforts are generally a response to a perceived failure and/or problem. It can be
assumed that the pressure associated with responding to failed events directs cognitive attention toward
seeking immediate causes, during which participants cannot let down their defenses and open themselves
up to exploring and questioning themselves and others. These change efforts often inhibit schools from
becoming learning organizations, increasing professional saturation, distraction, and cynicism among
practitioners (Brooks, Placier, & Cockrell, 2003). Nevertheless, in light of the complex and uncertain
environments in which schools operate, effective planned change and adaptation occur when learning
takes place throughout the organization (West, 1994). Planned school change needs to be based on the
networks of social processes among community members (Marks & Louis, 1999), which encourage a
more systematic and less biased inquiry into learners’ mental models.
Rosenholtz (1989), in this regard, found that developing schools, wherein teachers learned from
Educational Planning
4
each other through a collective enterprise, was more effective than ‘stuck’ schools that had difficulties
implementing changes. This was supported by Wohlstetter, Smyer and Mohrman’s (1994) findings that
“the most significant common element across actively restructuring schools was the extent to which
organizational mechanisms were in place that generated interactions for school-level actors around
issues related to curriculum and instruction” (p. 278). The growing evidence suggests that an extensive
use of collective learning mechanisms (OLMs) related to curriculum and instruction promotes greater
teacher commitment and student engagement in school practices (Bryk & Driscoll, 1988; Bryk,
Camburn, & Louis, 1999; Bryk, Lee, & Holland, 1993; Rowan, 1993). Moreover, teachers’ collegial
learning enhances faculty tendency toward experimentation and innovation in the context of planned
change. Thus, collegial learning increases teachers’ inquiry into instructional materials and practices
within school, which in turn, facilitates the use of innovative pedagogical methods that are consistent
with school change efforts (Bidwell & Yasumoto, 1999; Camburn, 1997; Marks & Louis, 1997).
As collective learning processes are in contrast to teachers’ pedagogical isolation-autonomy, which
so often prevails in schools, particularly in secondary ones (Printy, 2002), the principal’s role should
focus on providing the context (time and space) for dialogue. Principals are responsible for establishing
and consistently using processes in which teachers, students, administrators, as well as parents work,
together on professional problems as the seeds of any planned change. In this regard, these structures,
routines, and behavioral regularities, based on information processing, become a source of stability and
change during leadership succession. As OLMs represent a distributed knowledge throughout the entire
organization, rather than confined to a central location of one (e.g., principal) particular knowledge
system (Walsh & Ungson, 1991), planned change efforts can be more effectively sustained despite
leadership succession. Another aspect of such can be found in the role of the new principal to not only
initiate collective learning mechanisms as a means for negotiating and planning future school change,
but also to consider the collective memory and learning routines established by the former principal(s).
The process of leadership succession during times of school change is one that has been neglected
and under-explored, calling for further conceptualization and empirical research. More specifically, how
is it that components of change are implemented in such a way that they become basic assumptions of
the organization, remaining stable even in the midst of a leadership transition? What is the relationship
between leadership succession, extensive use of OLMs, members’ mental models, and pedagogical
practices? What is the contribution of these collective spaces of information processing to the overall
change process during administrative turnover? Furthermore, from a political perspective, how does the
extensiveness of OLMs affect the new administration’s legitimacy to either sustain or alter the change?
During times of leadership succession, can the school benefit more from informal channels of information
processing than from formal ones? And finally, there is a need to conceptualize and operationalize the
principal’s role in creating organizational learning structures in the context of leadership succession.
REFERENCES
Barnes, N. (2000). Teachers training teachers. Education Week, 19, 38-42.
Bell, L. (2002). Strategic planning and school management: Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing?
Journal of Educational Administration, 40(5), 407-424.
Bidwell, C. E., & Yasumoto, J. Y. (1999). The collegial focus: Teaching fields, collegial relationships,
and instructional practice in American high schools. Sociology of Education, 72(4), 234-256.
Briggs, D. (2000). Managing leadership transitions in education partnerships. San Francisco, CA:
WestEd.
Brock, B., & Grady, M. (1995). Principals in transition: Tips for surviving succession. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Brooks, J. S., Placier, M., & Cockrell, K. S. (2003, November). Exploring the dark side of school reform:
Teacher professional community and anomie. Paper presented at the annual convention of the
University Council for Educational Administration, Portland, OR.
Bryk, A. S., & Driscoll, M. E. (1988). The school as community: Theoretical foundations, contextual
influences, and consequences for students and teachers. Chicago: Center for School Improvement
at the University of Chicago.
5
Vol. 16, No. 2
Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary schools:
Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5),
751-781.
Bryk, A. S., Lee, V. E., & Holland, P. B. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Camburn, E. (1997). The impact of professional community on teacher learning and instructional
practice. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
DiBella, A. J., Nevis, E. C., & Gould, J. M. (1996). Understanding organizations learning capability.
Journal of Management Studies, 33(3), 361-379.
Easterby-Smith, M. (1997). Disciplines of the learning organizations: Contributions and critiques.
Human Relations, 50, 1085-1113.
Ellis, S., & Maidan-Gilad, N. (1997). Effects of organizational learning mechanisms on organizational
performance and shared mental models during planned change. The Recanati Graduate School of
Business Administration: Tel-Aviv University.
Fox, R., & Lippitt, R. (1967). The innovation and sharing of teaching practices - II: Procedures
for stimulating adoption and adaptation of selected teaching practices (Final Report).
(ERICReproductionServiceNo.ED030297).
Galbraith, J. (1977). Organization design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Guskin, A. E. (1996). Soft landing for new leaders. Trusteeship, 4(1), 12-16.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2000). The three dimensions of reform. Educational Leadership, 57(7),
30-33.
Hart, A. (1991). Leader succession and socialization: A synthesis. Review of Educational Research,
61(4), 451-474.
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organizational
Science, 2, 88-115.
Kirkland, T. P. (1991, April). A grounded theory of community college presidential succession. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Lambert, L. (1998). Building leadership capacity in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Lawernce, P., & Lorsch, J. (1967). Organization and environment. Boston, MA: Harvard University
Graduate School of Business Administration.
Lipshitz, R., & Popper, M. (2000). Organizational learning in a hospital. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 36(3), 345-361.
Louis, K. S. (1994). Beyond managed change: Rethinking how schools improve. School Effectiveness
and School Improvement, 5(1), 2-24.
Marks, H. M., & Louis, S. K. (1999). Teacher empowerment and the capacity for organizational learning.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 707-750.
Marquardt, M. J. (1996). Building the learning organization. New-York: McGraw-Hill.
Nystrom, P.C., & Starbuck, W.H. (1984). To avoid organizational crisis, unlearn. Organizational
Dynamics, 13, 53-65.
Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (1998). Organizational learning mechanisms: A cultural and structural
approach to organizational learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34, 161- 178.
Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (2000). Organizational learning: Mechanisms, culture and feasibility. Journal
of Management Learning, 31, 181-196.
Printy, S. (2002, November). Communities of practice: Their professional impact. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of The University Council for Educational Administration, Pittsburgh, PA.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools. Teachers College
Press. New York, NY.
Rowan, B. (1993). Teaching as a nonroutine task: Implications for the management of schools.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(4), 479-500.
Educational Planning
6
Sheppard, B., & Brown, J. (1999, April). Leadership approach, the new work of teachers and successful
change. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Montreal, Canada.
Silins, H. C., & Mulford, W. R. (2002). Schools as learning organizations. Journal of Educational
Administration, 40(5), 425-446.
Spender, J., & Grant, R. M. (1996). Knowledge and the firm: Overview. Strategic Management Journal,
17, 5-10.
Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G, R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16(1),
57-91.
Wasley, A. P. (1992). When leaders leave. Educational Leadership, 50(3), 64-67.
West, P. (1994). The concept of the learning organization. Journal of European Industrial Training,
18(1), 15-21.
Wohlstetter P., Smyer, R., & Mohrman, S. A. (1994). New boundaries for school-based management:
The high involvement model. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16, 268-286
7
Vol. 16, No. 2
PLANNING FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT:
CLOSING THE GAP OF CULTURE WITH DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES
Barbara J. Mallory
Charles A. Reavis
ABSTRACT
The gap of school culture is the first gap that principals need to address before and during implementation
of school improvement strategies. The authors posit that building a school culture of democracycenteredness is a means to close the culture gap. The democracy-centered school is equipped to deal
with external realities internally in a way that is perceived as engaging and participative. Applying
Friedman’s analysis of context, narratives, and imagination to schools, this paper presents correlates of
democracy-centered schools. The overlooked gap of school culture can be filled by democracy-centered
leaders, who build capacity for school improvement using democratic principles. Although barriers are
identified, including challenges for university principal preparation programs, the potential for sustained
school improvement within schools is dependent on a democracy-centered school culture.
INTRODUCTION
Planning to implement school improvement strategies to close achievement gaps begins with an
often overlooked gap, the school’s culture (Levine & Lezotte, 1995; Peterson & Deal, 1998). Schein
(1992) defined culture as: “a pattern of shared basic assumptions that a group learned as it solved its
problems of external adaptation and integration that has worked well enough to be considered valid
and therefore taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those
problems” (p. 12). As Deal and Kennedy (1982) stated, culture is “the way we do things around here” (p.
4). How the school perceives and addresses improvement is critical to the school renewal process. One
of the challenges is how to elicit sustained focus and effort in constant renewal (DuFour & Eaker, 1998).
What, then, is the gap of culture, and how do democratic principles close it?
CULTURE OF THE SCHOOL IN AN ERA OF ACCOUNTABILITY
In this era of school accountability, with many state and federal interventions impacting schools,
many principals are questioning if it matters how the local school operates. The culture of the school
has been invaded by external mandates about “how to do things.” For example, the most recent federal
influence on public schools, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, has greatly impacted the
culture of public schools. In a recent study conducted by the Public Agenda for the Wallace Foundation,
Farkas, Johnson, and Duffett (2003) report that 58% of principals surveyed believed that inadequate
funding and implementing NCLB were the most pressing problems they had, and 81% of the principals
expressed that complexity of regulations regarding special education had become “worse” in recent years.
Since the passage of NCLB, schools have been pressured by more centralized control and management
to comply with curriculum and testing expectations. Many principals question who is in control of the
“way we do things around here.”
The School’s Culture within the Organizational Structure
The local school, as an open system, is vulnerable to many external influences that impact the
culture of the school, leaving principals to question their role of middle managers. The school and school
leadership must develop strong internal systems to manage and control the external influences. There is a
“gap” in school culture if the school does not have strong internal systems to deal with external demands
of the school as an organization.
In the 21st century, it is imperative that all schools have strong systems for the way things are
done within the school, as societal and political influences are not going away. Hoy and Miskel (2005)
explained that schools, as open systems, should expect to receive and will always receive external
environmental pressures. “Technological and informational developments, political structures and
patterns of legal norms, social conditions and cultural values, economic and market factors, and population
and demographic characteristics influence school structures.”(p. 239). How each school addresses these
Educational Planning
8
changes is dependent on the unique culture of the school, but there has been little systematic research
that explains institutional cultures of effective schools (Hoy & Miskel, 2005). What we do know is that
each school is expected to adapt to the changing environmental demands.
Schools are expected to adapt to change and improve within. If the culture is strong, the chances
for school improvement initiatives are high (Wagner & Hasden-Copas, 2002; Sergiovanni, 2005). The
culture provides a bridge from previous to future achievement. Cultural leadership devalues the need for
external bureaucratic control structures, accepting the power of work groups to assume accountability
for decisions made and progress achieved within the school (Kunda, 1992, p.218). Not paying attention
to the culture of the school, “as the way we do things around here,” may impede the process of adapting
to change and improving.
Another way to view the gap of the school’s culture is to understand how schools traditionally work.
Cuban (1988) believed that many school improvement changes remain at the organizational periphery,
rather than embedded in the structure of schools. Spillane described how articulation across the school
as an organization is fragmented and given to individuals who often have little interaction with others.
(Spillane, 1998). Elmore (2000) described how the school system hierarchy has remained relatively
unchanged throughout the 20th century, with teachers working in isolated classrooms, managing the
technical core of the school. Schmoker (2004) explained that despite goals and innovation, teaching and
learning practices can remain largely static, with no improvement results. Lunenburg (2001) described the
culture gap as an incompatibility between the technical core of the organization, teaching and learning,
and the organizational “periphery,” which is the “infrastructure surrounding the technical core” (p. 7).
Elmore (2000) discussed this feature of the school as a loose coupling, drawing on the ideas of Weick
(1976). He distinguished between the technical core of the school and the administrative superstructure.
The technical core is about teachers’ work in the classroom, including the essential features of teaching
and learning—making decisions about how to teach the curriculum, how to work with students, how
to plan for learning, and how to assess student achievement. The administrative superstructure that
surrounds the technical core is the management feature of the school’s organization, “the ‘glue’ that
holds loosely coupled systems together” (Weick, 1982, p. 675). School improvement addresses both the
superstructure and the technical core, and a school must have a strong culture for school improvement
initiatives to make a difference. If the superstructure and the technical core are being invaded by external
influences, the school that has a weak culture will not be able to sustain school improvement.
This loose coupling feature of the school as an organization poses another problem, as described
by Kleinhenz and Ingvarson (2004):
The theme of the loose coupling argument, as it relates to education, can be stated as follows:
the technical core of education systems is weak, disordered and uncertain, largely because of
doubts about the status of teachers’ professional knowledge. Teachers and administrators alike
resist incursions into the technical core, preferring to leave essential decisions about teaching and
learning to individual teachers who generally work in isolation. The surrounding administrative
arrangements thus carefully contrive to ignore the fragile core of practice, shielding it from external
scrutiny and criticism while creating an appearance of orderly management. In loose coupling
theory, management of the structures and processes that surround the technical core of education
is quite separate from management of the core itself. Although it may seem that educational
management is about managing the processes of teaching and learning (the technical core), it is,
in reality, nothing of the sort. Educational management, according to this theory, manages things
like student grouping, school organization, timetabling and major school events, but leaves the
technical core of teaching and learning to the idiosyncratic practice of individual teachers who
are ‘buffered’ from outside interference by the very structures which, ostensibly, were set up to
manage their work. This buffering has the effect of falsely reassuring the public that all is well at
the technical core. (pp. 35-36)
They argue that assuring teacher quality and facilitating school improvement will best be achieved
when teachers and administrators work together in a climate of respect for the complexity and depth
of teachers’ professional knowledge and practice. In other words, a healthy culture of respect of the
people, by the people, and for the people within the organization who are closest to the major work of
9
Vol. 16, No. 2
the school, teaching and learning, is essential to improvement (Kleinhenz & Ingvarson, 2004). Engaging
stakeholders external to the technical core to focus on school improvement with teachers and students is
essential in ongoing renewal of the school.
Closing the Gap of Culture
If a disconnect, or gap, exists between the organizational structure and the teaching and learning
core of the school, school improvement is very difficult, if not impossible. For school improvement to
occur, there must be a strong connection across all levels of the organizational structure and technical
core (Lunenburg, 2001). It is the culture of the school that provides the means for the congruence of an
effective organizational framework, a strong technical core, and energy and motivation to sustain the
renewal (Sergiovanni, 2005).
From a careful scrutiny of the literature of effective schools, Sergiovanni (2005) surmised that
the school is an organization both “tightly coupled” and “loosely coupled” (p. 140). He explains that
successful schools that are tightly coupled are “closely organized in a highly disciplined fashion around a
set of core ideas spelling out the way of life in the school and governing the way in which people should
behave” (p. 140). Successful schools are also “loosely coupled” in that there is also a sense of autonomy
“so that people can pursue these themes in ways that make sense to them” (p. 140). The combination
of tight structure around clear themes and a sense of autonomy results in successful schools, which are
schools that implement school improvement initiatives and sustain change with energy and commitment
within the school.
If the school’s culture is strong, the school is better able to achieve its school improvement goals.
(Sergiovanni, 2005). The Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory identified ten capacities
for initiating and sustaining school improvement at the elementary level, one of which is strengthening
the culture of the school (2000). Schein (1992) argued that the most important aspect of leadership is
creating and managing culture and working with it to meet the needs of the organization. Therefore,
a principal who works to build a strong culture may provide the means to generate the kind of energy
necessary to initiate and sustain school improvement.
DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES WITHIN SCHOOL CULTURE
So, how does a principal build a strong culture? The authors posit that a school culture based on
democracy-centered principles is essential to continuous school improvement. As schools have a long
tradition of preparing students for roles within democratic society, it is the school as a host culture of
democracy-centeredness that has great potential for creating engagement and commitment to the school
improvement process. A democracy-centered school has great potential for filling the gap of school
culture and school improvement. According to Darling-Hammond, schools that have restructured to
function democratically “produce high achievement with more students of all abilities and graduate
more of them with better levels of skills and understanding than traditional schools do.” (1997, p. 331).
In planning for school improvement, the school with democratic principles has potential to become a
learning organization in action. A learning organization, as described by Senge (1990), is a place “where
people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive
patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually
learning how to learn together” (p. 3).
Content, Narrative, and Imagination within the School
Let’s examine the potential of democracy-centeredness in schools by first looking at the potential of
democracy within a country. Thomas Friedman, in his book, The World is Flat: A Historical Perspective
of the 21st Century, described how India has the second largest Muslim population in the world, yet
there is no evidence of that population’s involvement in world-wide extremism. Although India is a
vast Hindu-dominated country, he described how Indian Muslims have enjoyed sustained democracy
within their country. Although there have been isolated examples of interreligious conflicts, Muslims in
India realize opportunities of freedom and participation to fight for their beliefs within their democratic
government. In contrast, where Islam is embedded in authoritarian societies, for example in Pakistan
Educational Planning
10
right across the border, “it tends to become the vehicle of angry protest” and extremism. (Friedman,
p. 559) Friedman offered an explanation for the difference in Muslims’ behaviors in terms of context,
narrative, and imagination.
By context, Friedman referred to the social, political, religious, and economic environment of the
society in which they live. Sustained democracy, economic opportunity, and a culture of tolerance for
expression of ideas exists within Indian society--not all without tension, but all within a democracy that
has survived without manifesting anger, extremism, and disenfranchisement. This context provides
positive narratives about how one makes progress, gets ahead, and provides for family. In turn, these
narratives lead to the development of positive imaginations—expectations for the future and how one
might be successful. Thus Friedman’s view, and the view of M.J. Akbar, the Muslim editor of the
Asian Age, a national Indian daily newspaper, is that the context in which Indian Muslims live (which
is democracy-centered) and the narratives they share (ones of progress, possibilities, and a good life in
which they can practice their beliefs) stimulate their imagination of a world in which they want to live—
not destroy. Muslims in India enjoy the context of a democratic government, where the current President
is a Muslim, a female Muslim sits on the Supreme Court, and the wealthiest man in India is Muslim, all
within an Indian society largely Hindu, but within context, narrative, and imagination of democracy.
Applying this analysis to schools, one might ask what context is experienced by students and
teachers, those closest to the technical core of the school. Results from a national survey conducted by
First Amendment Schools (www.FirstAmendmentSchools), regarding students’ and teachers’ experience
with democracy within their schools, revealed the following percentages regarding participation: (1)
civic responsibility, 31%; (2) freedom of expression, 50%; (3) freedom of religion, 59%; (4) freedom
of the press, 23%; (5) broad-based participation, 23%; (6) civic mission to the public, 50%; (7) parent
participation, 45%; (8) student government, 27%; (9) curriculum engages students, 27%; and, (10)
service learning, 56%. Without information on respondents or school level, one can only examine the
percentages at face value to find that some schools do not have widespread engagement. This profile of
percentages reflects the context experienced by some students and teachers in the responding schools.
Regarding the context of these schools, what might be the narratives from the respondents? The narratives
generated from this context, and from the context where external controls dominate the culture, might be
stories of disengagement and disenfranchisement. One might hear comments such as, “It’s no use to try;
they won’t listen.” “They asked for input, but it really doesn’t matter.” “They only care about the rich,
white people in this school.” Just give me the pacing guide, and I’ll teach it however you tell me.” “Only
the good students catch a break in this school.” “Just teach to the test and don’t make waves.” “If I hear
test scores one more time. . .” From these narratives, what imagination might develop?
The imagination of teachers and students with these kinds of narratives might lead to life looking
better outside the school—rather than inside the school. Aggression, vandalism, and /or even apathy may
have more appeal than rules and external control. Doing the minimum, just getting by, “five more years
to retirement,” may be the imagination of teachers who share such narratives. Students also may see
school as a place to escape, rather than a place to learn.
In schools where there is a disconnect in the technical core and organizational infrastructure, the
imagination of teachers and students within the school may be left to isolated situations, leading to a
deeper level of disenfranchisement. The student, teacher, or administrator may experience random acts
of excellence in isolated cases, creating narratives, such as, “If you want to learn, you better get into Mr.
ABC’s class,” or “I demand that my child be placed with Mr. ABC, because he’s the best teacher in sixth
grade.” These narratives lead to imagining that success is possible for those students who have influential
parents or whose “luck” determines one’s fate. Worse yet, it leaves those who are not very familiar with
the “way we do things around here,” even more disenfranchised from the opportunities of teaching and
learning.
In schools where democracy is practiced and embedded in the culture of the school, where the
infrastructure and the technical core are both tightly structured and loosely structured, there can be a
context of autonomy and freedom that co-exists with state accountability and external demands. In 2001,
ASCD joined forces with Freedom Forum’s First Amendment Center to launch an initiative designed
to transform ways in which schools model and teach rights and responsibilities of a democracy. Many
11
Vol. 16, No. 2
examples of such schools may be found at their website (http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/).
A Democracy-centered School
One elementary school that endorsed the First Amendment Schools ideals of democracycenteredness turned their culture around in order to improve student achievement and to improve
engagement of teachers, students, and parents in the school improvement process. The host culture of
democracy-centeredness is embedded at Fairview Elementary, one of the 97 First Amendment Schools.
The school is described as a high minority school in a neighborhood troubled by drugs. English is
a foreign language for many of the parents. Working to implement First Amendment and democratic
practices, the school’s culture became more inclusive, and, soon, the narratives began to change. Parents
felt included in the school, students became more engaged, and imagination of those within the school
demonstrated hope and success. In the last two years, suspension rates have dropped, their “graduates” in
sixth grade have averaged a “B” or better, test scores have doubled, and the students were able to reverse
a dress code through democracy in action.
Although this is the narrative of one school, there are many such examples at the First Amendment
web site. What is clear to principals is that planning to implement school improvement initiatives involves
engaging teachers, students, and parents within the context of the school. The narratives and imagination
derived from the culture of the school are very insightful during planning and implementation of school
improvement initiatives.
On the other hand, there are examples of schools that have achieved higher test scores through
bureaucratic, tight controls on the teaching and learning core. Bureaucracy and management can produce
higher test scores. In the NCLB environment, many schools are responding to external controls and
demands that have placed principals in a middle manager position. Teachers are told how and what to do.
Morale is low, but test scores are improving. Federal and state controls have demoralized the efficacy of
the school. Although there are success stories in the literature of schools improving test scores with tight
controls and no democracy in action, the capacity for schools to sustain improvement and go beyond
improving test scores remain within the capacity of the school’s culture. Even though bureaucracy and
external controls provide a means to raise test scores, to sustain school renewal without a culture of
engagement within the school is difficult.
In assessing the culture of the school, a principal might determine the state of the school’s culture by
observing the context and listening to the narratives of all of those within the school—not just the “best”
students and the “best” teachers and the “best” parents. A principal may ask “What if?” to determine
aspirations and dreams of those within the school. Friedman advocates thinking about how we stimulate
positive imaginations. He related advice given to him by an IBM computer scientist about encouraging
people to focus on productive outcomes, to minimize alienation, and to celebrate interdependence.
Friedman, in viewing the global society in which we now live, advocated focusing on “‘inclusion, rather
than exclusion,’ openness, opportunity, and hope, rather than limits, suspicion, and grievance” (p. 545).
In schools focused on aspirations, principals who espouse practices of democratic principles and
values within their schools have great potential to sustain school improvement. For example, Fairview
Elementary developed a First Amendment School Leadership Team, with parents, students, community
members, teachers, and administrators sharing access to the school’s policies and procedures. The
function of the team was to ensure that the policies and procedures reflect the democratic ideals they
promoted. Democracy-centered leadership is at work in all of the decisions made within the school,
with the students reversing a school dress code. Even as NCLB pressures have become part of their
environment, they have a culture of democracy in action, as “the way we do things around here” are
embedded in engagement, evidenced by their context, narratives, and imagination.
Correlates of Democracy-centered Schools
So, what exactly are democracy-centered schools? First of all, the literature abounds with the rationale
for public education, which usually includes the purpose of educating youth for citizen participation in
democracy. In his book, In Praise of Education, Goodlad (1997) argued that the purpose of education
is to develop individual and collective democratic character. Apple & Beane (1999) identified central
Educational Planning
12
ideals of democratic schools to include: open flow of ideas; faith in individual and collective capacity of
people for resolving problems; use of collective capacity of people for resolving problems; use of critical
reflection to evaluate ideas, problems, and policies; concern for welfare of others and the common
good; concern for dignity and rights of individuals and minorities. Maxcy (1995) discussed democratic
values as those that are based on: a dedicated belief in worth of individual and importance of individual
in participation and discussion regarding school life; a belief in freedom, intelligence and inquiry; a
persuasion that plans and that solutions should be results of individuals pooling their intelligent efforts
with communities.
So, what does a democracy-centered school look like in comparison to some schools in regards to
democratic practices? The following components (see Table 1) of a democracy-centered school, while
not exhaustive, provide a framework by which principals may question the extent of democracy-centered
practices within their schools. The features of a democracy-centered school are contrasted with what
might be current conditions in some schools:
13
Vol. 16, No. 2
Table 1
Correlates of Democracy-centered Schools
Current Practice
CORRELATE
Democracy-centered Practice
1-The individual
is valued and
respected.
All students are valued. Individual
identity is valued, and individual
student progress is monitored and
recognized. Continuous student
progress is valued. Assessment for
learning is the focus.
2-Equality and equity
are core values.
Students witness democratic values
and practices in policy development
and application. Equity of instructional
practices is demonstrated within
classrooms and across classrooms.
Students develop a healthy respect for
all. Heterogeneous representation is
practiced.
Dissent is discouraged.
Those in power develop rules,
procedures, and consequences.
There is an imbalance in the
common good and individual
rights. The common good
is enforced by authoritarian
practices.
3-Civility, decency,
and justice are
practiced.
Dissent is expected and respected.
Conflicting viewpoints are considered
and provided a means to influence
rules, procedures, and consequences.
Rules, procedures, and consequences
are developed by all who will be
affected by them. The common good is
balanced by individual rights.
Freedom is restricted, even
feared. Questioning and
thinking are discouraged,
especially in some classrooms.
4-Freedom is valued.
Freedom is expanded/ encouraged.
Questioning and thinking are valued/
stimulated in all classrooms.
Some students, teachers, and
parents participate in school.
5-Civic obligation/
participation is
expected.
Opportunities for involvement across
the curriculum extend to every student,
teacher, and parent.
Student/teacher government
is perfunctory. Parent
involvement limited. Faculty/
staff engagement limited to
‘small’ matters. Competition is
encouraged to defeat.
6-The circle
of meaningful
engagement is
expanded.
Student government, parent
organizations, and faculty/staff
involvement is meaningful to decisionmaking and accomplishing shared
goals. Competition is encouraged to
improve.
Compliant students are valued.
Conformity is desired. Good
students are recognized and
privileged within the school.
Grades are used to sort and
select.
Students witness unequal
application of policies and
procedures. Classes are
“dumbed down” for some
students. Some students
are more equal than others.
Homogeneity of representation
is practiced.
Although not an exhaustive list, these correlates can be used to assess the democracy-centeredness of
the school’s culture. As the school transitions into a democracy-centered place, the host culture of
democracy as “the way we do things around here” has potential for students to become more energized,
parental involvement more meaningful, and faculty and staff more committed, loyal, and engaged.
The context of democracy-centered schools has the potential to create narratives, such as “we worked
together to design senior projects,” “we decided to use early dismissal time for professional learning
Educational Planning
14
communities.” “In developing our new inclusion teams, we identified ways to create time for ongoing
planning.” “The student government decided to work on strategies to discourage cheating.” “Lots
of students and teachers attended our forum and participated in interviews when we were gathering
information.” From such narratives, the imagination concerning school is that school life is meaningful.
Rather than escape, students participate. Rather than waiting for retirement, teachers develop a sense of
efficacy that motivates their work. Parents understand their access to the school. Cooperation, teamwork,
and the feeling that “I make a difference” may become operational.
Challenges and Barriers to Democracy-centered Schools
It may seem illogical to school leaders to relinquish power in an era of accountability that holds
the principal ultimately responsible for student performance as indicated by “test scores.” Distributed
leadership and widening the circle of engagement in a school setting, however, create a context that
is necessary to do the work of school in this era of accountability and 21st century challenges. In the
current climate of change, it is becoming necessary for knowledge workers to be in a continuous learning
mode. The real reform, then, lies within the school’s capacity to be democracy-centered, with the leader
recognizing the school as a learning community with democratic values and access to and participation
in decision-making within the school.
Furman and Starratt (2002) caution that just establishing an environment of democratic participation
is not sufficient. Democracy requires “the ability to listen, understand, empathize, negotiate, speak,
debate, and resolve conflict in a spirit of interdependence and working for the common good” (p. 116).
The celebration of diversity--rather than the desire for homogeneity and conformity--evolves from a
school that employs democracy-centered leadership. Engagement of all involves more than getting a
few to address minor problems. Democracy-centeredness can only be achieved when the structural and
inherent features of the system are changed to reflect the capacity of access, capacity for contributions,
and capacity for benefits from all who are within the democracy. The school created from the need
for democracy-centered participation is real reform only if the “accessed” develop the practices and
procedures that they choose to be governed by within the school. It is difficult work.
The challenge for university preparation programs is developing the means for deep development
of principal interns. In contrast to the assortment of courses found in the typical preparation program,
deep development provides opportunities to face typical challenges through a virtual school to practice
decision-making and interventions associated with democracy-centered leadership.
Initially, educators borrowed their models of leadership from management studies. In doing so,
they promoted and adopted organizational arrangements that invested particular individuals with power
so that the latter would be able to force, motivate, or inspire others in ways that would help schools
achieve the comparatively narrow ends of efficiency and productivity (Ryan, 2006).
If the principal intern enrolled in a preparation program sees the leadership role as hierarchical, based
on the image of the school leader as a manager, then real reform may be problematic. As Sergiovanni
(2005) suggested, the principal’s role in developing a community of learners is a challenge, not only of
efficiency and productivity but also of moral choices. Building the capacity of future school leaders to
develop confidence in and comfort with democracy-centeredness requires deep development.
Another challenge to the practice of democracy-centered school leadership is federal, state, and
local intervention in schools, forcing compliance with procedures designed to address adequate yearly
progress (AYP). The resulting confusion over power and authority may lead to the absence of a support
culture for democracy-centeredness. Absence of trust makes the development of democracy-centered
schools harder work, but even more necessary work.
Recently, the authors conducted a pilot study in which the Jung-Myers-Briggs typology test was
administered to 25 elementary and secondary principals from three school districts. This test measures
preferences, not abilities or skills. Individuals tend to be guided by their preferences and be more
comfortable with actions that are compatible with them, however, even though they may be able to
exhibit other types of behavior. The following results were obtained from this pilot study: (a) 100%
of the high school principals and 79% of the elementary principals scored a preference for Sensing.
Sensing types take information in through the senses and prefer tangible reality. Their focus is on
15
Vol. 16, No. 2
the present. They are interested in what is rather that what might be. Key phrases that define their
preferences are: facts, present, experience, practicality, realism. What these findings suggested is that
the typical principal may have great difficulty in leading a democracy-centered school, which rests on
more intangible factors (for example, permitting students to reverse a dress code as occurred in Fairview
Elementary might appear to such principals as a short term risk, their being disinclined to visualize
the collateral benefits to instruction of a more democratic emphasis). (b) 71% of secondary principals
and 21% of elementary principals scored as Introverts. They prefer to work independently and may
experience working with others as painful. Key words are quiet, private, few, deep, inward. This finding
suggested that they would have difficulty in working with and negotiating with groups, which is the
essence of democratic practice.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRINCIPAL TRAINING
While the results were from a pilot study of 25 principals in three school districts, they are
supported by other studies of principal preferences and, given the high percentages, suggested that these
findings may be characteristic of principals, generally. In light of the preference for Sensing and the
high percentage of secondary principals who scored as Introverts, a much more robust training program
will be needed to support principals as they learn to manage their preferences in order to engage in
democracy-centered school practice. Currently, principals experience training that features information
supplemented with discussion, analysis of cases, and projects at their home schools. These training
approaches have enjoyed wide support in the literature. They are not likely, however, to be sufficiently
robust to alter deeply held preferences.
We propose a process of “deep development,” the focus of which would be to aid principals in
moderating the influence of their preferences as described above to prepare them to lead democracycentered schools. Such training has been piloted with students in a course in school leadership. A
scaffolding approach has been followed, starting with the presentation and discussion of a democracycentered school and how it fits with current theory of effective organizations. Following this, and
supplemented with discussion in which they can raise questions and express doubts, they are presented
with cases, which they discuss in terms of moving the school toward democracy-centered practices
through their handling of that case.
From here, and this is where the deep development occurs, the students are placed in a “hot seat”
where they must deal with, in real time, a situation in a “virtual principal’s office.” Other class members
have cards, red signaling that they feel the student in the “hot seat” has not moved the school toward
democracy-centered practices or green to signal that they agree that the student has done so. Then
“red” and “green” students are paired to discuss how they arrived at their decision and report back to
the class. The student in the “hot seat” also has an opportunity to discuss his rationale for the way he
handled the situation and why he thinks it moved the school toward democracy-centered practice. The
professor then provides his analysis of the response of the student. Over time, students have been able
to implement democracy-centered practices in a variety of hypothetical situations. Research is on-going
on the transfer of these practices and preferences into school settings.
SUMMARY
School improvement is a process which begins within the culture of the school. The “gap” of
school culture is often overlooked, making school renewal difficult. Closing the gap begins with an
understanding of “the way we do things around here.” Schools as open systems are vulnerable to external
environments, which make change inevitable and ongoing. Schools are expected to adapt, but school
improvement changes may remain at the organizational periphery, the impact not to be felt at the teaching
and learning core of the school. For school improvement to occur, there must be a strong connection
across all levels of the school as an organization. The culture can be the “glue” that binds the school
improvement initiatives and practices across the school. Building a school culture based on democratic
principles has great potential for transforming the school. The context, narratives, and imagination of
those within the school can be used to generate the energy, commitment, and accountability necessary
in school improvement.
Educational Planning
16
The challenges of 21st century life and the need for all students to achieve provide the motivation for
democracy-centered school leadership. The correlates of democracy-centered schools provide a vision
of what schools might begin to look like in the process of becoming more democratic. Barriers to the
process, however, may initially come from within the school. Teachers may resist involvement because
of the confusion over power and authority. Democracy-centered schooling also requires hard work both
inside and outside the classroom. Students may resist because of the risk of engaging in what they
may perceive as the “adult” world. Other barriers include the general malaise typical in a bureaucratic
organization that leaves faculty, staff, and students feeling powerless, especially in educational decisions
that have been so influenced from district, state, and national control. University training programs
for principals will need to redesign to insure the deep development required of leaders of democracycentered schools. Whatever the internal barriers and external challenges, however, they can be addressed
within the school, beginning the transformation of the school as a host culture of democracy-centered
practices.
REFERENCES
Apple, M., & Beane, J., Eds. (1999). Democratic schools: Lessons from the chalk face. Buckingham,
U.K.: Open University Press.
Cuban, L. (1988). Constancy and change in schools. In P.W. Jackson (Ed.), Contributing to educational
change. Berkley, CA: McCutchan.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures. Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing
student achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership, American Educator, 23(4), 6–13.
Farkas, S., Johnson, J., & Duffett, A. (2003). Rolling up their sleeves: Superintendents and principals
talk about what’s needed to improve public schools. A report from Public Agenda for the Wallace
Foundation. New York: Public Agency.
Friedman, T. (2006). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar,
Straus, and Giroux.
Furman G., & Starratt, R. (2002). Leadership for democratic community in schools. In J. Murphy (Ed.).
The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 105–134).
National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goodlad, J. (1997). In praise of education. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
Hoy, W., & Miskel, C. (2005). Educational administration: Theory, research, and Practice (7th ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Kleinhenz, E., & Ingvarson, I. (2004). Teacher accountability in Australia: Current policies and practices
and their relation to the improvement of teaching and learning. Research Papers in Education,
19(1), 31-49.
Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation. Philadelphia,
PA: Temple University Press.
Levine, D. U., & Lezotte. (1995). Effective schools research. Information Analysis. (ERIC Document
Reproduction No. ED 382 724).
Lunenburg, F. (2001, August). Improving student achievement: Some structural incompatibilities. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration,
Houston, TX.
Maxcy, S. (1995). Democracy, chaos, and the new school order. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory. (2000). What it takes: 10 capacities for initiating
and sustaining school improvement at the elementary level. Providence, RI: Brown Univ.
Peterson, K. D., & Deal, T. E.(1998). How leaders influence culture of schools. Educational Leadership,
56(1), 28-30.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership ( 2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17
Vol. 16, No. 2
Schmoker, M. (2004). Tipping point: From feckless form to substantive instructional improvement. Phi
Delta Kappan, 85(6), 424-432.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York:
Doubleday.
Sergiovanni, T. (2005). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.
Spillane, J. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district.: Organizational
and professional considerations. American Education Research Journal, 35(1), 33-63.
Wagner, C., & Hasden-Copas, P. (2002). An audit of the culture starts with two handy tools. Journal of
Staff Development. National Staff Development Council. Summer. 42-53.
Weick, K. E. (1982). Administering education in loosely coupled schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 27(2),
673-676.
.
Educational Planning
18
THE ROLE OF PLANNING IN THE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROCESS
Robert H. Beach
Ronald A. Lindahl
ABSTRACT
Henri Fayol is generally regarded as a foundational author on classical management theory. He
enumerated five basic functions of management: planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating,
and controlling. Consistent with Fayol’s model, over the past half-century, planning has generally
been recognized by administrative theorists as one of the major functions expected of administrators,
including school administrators. This article examines various approaches to educational planning,
including the rational, incremental, mixed-scanning, and developmental models, and discusses how they
can be used to guide large-scale school improvement processes.
INTRODUCTION
Henri Fayol, a French mining engineer whose 1916 book, General and Industrial Management, is
generally regarded as the foundational work on classical management theory. In this work he enumerated
five basic functions of management: planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling.
Although these functions have been challenged as being too structured to portray the true, chaotic
nature of the administrator’s role (Mintzberg, 1973), they do offer a useful framework for understanding
the responsibilities of management (Barnett, 2006). Consistent with Fayol’s model, over the past
half-century, planning has generally been recognized by administrative theorists as one of the major
functions expected of administrators, including school administrators (American Association of School
Administrators, 1955; Carroll & Gillen, 1987; Drucker, 1974; Gardner, 1990; Gregg, 1957; Gulick &
Urwick, 1937; Johnson, Kast, & Rosenzweig, 1967; Knezevich, 1984; Newman, 1950; Newman &
Sumner, 1961; Quinn, 1980a; Sears, 1950; Urwick, 1952).
Fayol defined planning, prevoyance, as the forecasting of future trends, the setting of objectives,
the determination of means to attain those objectives, and the coordination and harmonization of the
organization’s efforts to achieve those objectives. He called for the development of timelines, action
plans, and budgets or resource requests necessary for the execution of the plan. He advocated flexibility
in planning that would allow management time to react to changes in circumstances. Fayol recognized
that planning, as with the other functions of management, was “neither an exclusive privilege nor a
particular responsibility of the head or senior members of an organization; it is an activity spread across
all members of the ‘corps social’” (p. 13). He advocated, however, the creation of a long-range planning
group charged with setting directions for the next ten years and providing lower-level planning units with
a broad set of assumptions, guiding principles, and long-range targets to be met through shorter-term,
more focused plans (p. 22). Although written almost a century ago, many of Fayol’s ideas on planning
provide foundations for best practice in educational planning today (Lindahl, 1998).
WHAT IS THE STATUS OF EDUCATIONAL PLANNING TODAY?
Planning is clearly an essential management function in all schools, regardless of geographic location
or grade levels served. Although principals may no longer be formally prepared with knowledge of
planning models and practices (Beach & Lindahl, 2000), they utilize a variety of such models intuitively
(Beach & McInerney, 1986; Cooper, 1990), with varying degrees of success. The reduction of principal
preparation programs’ attention to planning as a management function (Beach & Lindahl, 2004b) may
well be attributed to the failures of past planning practices and the distaste left by the amount of time
and resources that had been committed to those practices. During the 1960s and 1970s, educational
planning was a highly formal, exhaustive, comprehensive process conducted by top level administrators
and technicians. These processes typically produced voluminous plans, most of which were never
implemented and did little more than collect dust on the school’s, district’s, and state department of
education’s collective shelves. In the subsequent two decades, one specific model of planning, strategic
planning, dominated schools’ planning agendas and practices; in many cases it was mandated by the
state or by the school’s accrediting agency (Beach & Lindahl, 2005a). It, too, was highly demanding
19
Vol. 16, No. 2
of time and resources, often without identifiable results. Consequently, it is not surprising that the word
planning has taken on negative connotations in many school settings. This failure in plan flexibility, excessive comprehensiveness, and the misunderstanding of the
planning process itself has caused an apparent contradiction: planning is an essential managerial
function in all schools, yet it is held in low regard. Why is this? Simply, planning is a highly complex
managerial function that must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each school and must be
properly integrated with the other management functions. To help orient the proper use of planning in
schools, this article examines the circumstances under which it is appropriate to engage in planning, the
various models of planning that should be considered, and how planning should be integrated into the
overall school improvement process.
The perspective that was often held by planners tended to be one that viewed planning as the totality
of the process of organizational improvement: if you plan it, it will be! The recognition that planning
is only one aspect of a complex, highly interwoven set of processes was generally lacking. Developing
a wonderful plan is one thing; implementing that plan—creating change, and seeing that that change is
institutionalized and stable across the organization, and through time, is something else again. Concerns
for implementation and institutionalization must be recognized in the planning process. As Figure 1
illustrates, planning is just the front end of the process of organizational improvement.
Organizational Improvement Process
Planning
Implementation
Institutionalization
Pre-Planning -- Planning
-- Readiness
Change
Diffusion
Time
Figure 1. The organizational improvement process.
WHEN IS PLANNING NECESSARY?
Change and, hopefully, improvement are constants in schools; however, planning is not necessary
for all changes or improvements to occur. For many of the more routine changes, schools already
have a repertoire of strategies and processes established (Beach & Lindahl, 2004b). For example, few
would argue that the classroom teacher is the single most crucial element in the educational process;
consequently, the hiring of each new teacher represents an essential change in a school. Because
this is a change that occurs with relative frequency, however, schools do not need to plan for it; they
already have established policies and procedures in place to guide the process. Similarly, the selection
of textbooks can represent a significant change for both curriculum and instruction for a grade level
or subject area within a school. However, as with teacher selection, planning is not required because
schools face this change with sufficient regularity to have established a repertoire of policies and
procedures that are generally effective in guiding the changes.
Educational Planning
20
Other changes in schools are handled through administrative decisions, either by the principal or a
designated individual or team. When a hurricane rips the roof off two of the school’s classrooms, a change
is required; however, the urgency and relatively small scale of the situation calls for an administrative
decision rather than a formal planning process.
On the other hand, external mandates from the district, state, or federal governments may require
large-scale changes in the school curriculum and/or instruction. Certainly, some of the accountability
measures of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the move to further inclusion of special needs
children into regular education classrooms promoted by the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act of 1990 and its subsequent revisions required extensive changes in schools. Changing societal
expectations, e.g., the integration of technology throughout the curriculum, required large-scale curricular,
instructional, facilities, and resource changes. Other large-scale changes arise from the discernment of
best practice; for example, many high schools have moved to block scheduling as a means of promoting
student achievement, a change with significant effects on the school’s curriculum, instruction, staff
development, scheduling, policies, etc. Other schools have attempted to implement more prescribed
reform programs, such as Accelerated Schools (Hopfenberg & Levin, 1993; Levin, 1987) or Paideia
Schools (Adler, 1982, 1984). In yet other cases, internal scanning by a school may reveal significant
changes in the demographics of the school’s student body or the disaggregation of standardized test
scores may reveal unacceptable variations in performance among groups of students. These, too, may
imply the need for large-scale school improvement A depiction of several major alternatives available
for implementing school change, and subsequently school improvement is, illustrated in Figure 2. In all
these circumstances, some form of planning becomes necessary. Understanding the alternative planning
models is essential if the school is to be effective and efficient in guiding change.
MODELS OF PLANNING
The broadest categorization of educational planning models separates them into three modalities:
rational, incremental, and developmental. This by no means implies that incremental or developmental
models are irrational. Rather, rational models are those that begin with the articulation of goals and the
selection of a possible solution from the set of possible solutions that will lead to achieving the goal
(Beneveniste, 1991; Brieve, Johnston, & Young, 1958; Kaufman, 1972; Simon 1955, 1957, 1982, 1997),
whereas incremental models do not substantially challenge or expand existing goals and do not call for
evaluation of and selection from extended lists of alternative means.
Developmental models are oriented to the overall improvement of the organization within its shared
culture and focus on goals only later in the planning process (see Clark, 1981; Clark, Lotto, & Astuto, 1989;
McCaskey, 1974). Developmental models focus more on identifying and institutionalizing commonly
shared values, beliefs, and visions and then on encouraging and supporting individuals to pursue these
in ways that capitalize on their own personal and professional abilities and strengths. Although there
must be a clear, shared directional thrust, specific goals and prescribed actions yield in importance to
developing and strengthening a healthy organizational culture. Obviously, with such different foci, these
three basic categories of planning models offer distinctive strengths and weaknesses and are appropriate
in significantly different organizations and circumstances. Even within the category of rational planning
models, sufficient differences exist to warrant careful consideration as to the appropriateness for specific
situations. The sections that follow explain each model briefly and give examples as to when it might be
the appropriate or inappropriate choice for a school or district.
21
Vol. 16, No. 2
Environment
The Organization Improvement
Repertoire
Internal
Policy
Mandates
Best
Practice
Response to
Environmental
Change
a
Accepted Institutionalized
Process
b.
Responsible Agent
Decision
c
Internal Scanning
n
d.
External
Policy
Mandates
e
DevelopmenWhen No Defined or
Institutionalized Process Exists
Unaware, Uncaring, Neglect:
Leading to an Unshaped Future
Figure 2. Organizational improvement repertoire.
Educational Planning
Changed Organization
Societal Expectations
and Demands
Internally
Desirable
Change
22
Rational Planning Models
Rational models begin with one or more goals. These are just the desired outcomes of the change
process. Goals are the purpose of the change. When the goals have been articulated, the process shifts
toward a search for processes or set of activities that will achieve the goals. These are the set of alternatives
from which one process will be selected. A classic rational planning process is illustrated in Figure 3.
START
Establish Goals
A
Analyze Alternatives
Assess Needs
Select Alternatives
Identify Resources and Restraints
Implement Alternative
Formulate Objectives / Priorities & Performance
Evaluate Process / Performance
Generate Alternatives
A
Modify System
ST0P
Figure 3. A typical rational planning process.
A range of models comprise the rational category. Although all call for the rational selection of
goals and actions from among competing alternatives, they are differentiated primarily by the degree
of comprehensiveness employed in identifying those alternatives and in making a rational selection
from among those alternatives. Rationalism, as used here, relates to the search for alternatives that yield
potentially positive outcomes; this is a process of generating rational consequences. As is illustrated
in Figure 4, the more comprehensive an approach the model takes to identifying potential alternative
goals and actions, the more resources, particularly time, data, and expertise, are needed for the planning
process.
It is easiest to explain the three basic rational models (comprehensive rational, mixed scanning,
and bounded or limited rational) by beginning with the most complex (comprehensive rational) model
of the continuum. Because the comprehensive rational model represents the conceptual epitome of this
category, it is useful to introduce it first.
The Comprehensive Rational Model. As discussed, the basic steps of this model are to: (a)
identify appropriate goals for the organization, (b) identify appropriate alternative actions to attain
these goals, and (c) make an appropriate, value-maximizing selection from among these alternatives in
choosing a plan of action for the organization (Allison, 1969; Banfield, 1959). All three of these steps
are couched in the concept of rationalism, which subsumes such factors as feasibility, effectiveness,
and efficiency (see Benveniste, 1991; Brieve, Johnston, & Young, 1958; Campbell, Cunningham,
Nystrand, & Usdan, 1980; Jacobson, Logsdon, & Wiegman, 1973; Kaufman, 1972; Kimbrough &
Nunnery, 1976; Knezevich, 1984; Morphet, Johns, & Reller, 1974; Orlosky, McCleary, Shapiro, &
Webb, 1984; Sergiovanni, Bur­lingame, Coombs, & Thurston, 1980; Simon 1955, 1957, 1982, 1997;
Tanner & Williams, 1981).
At initial glance, this may appear to be a rather simple, straightforward process. In reality, the
complexities of each school’s changing environment, internal strengths and weaknesses, readiness for
change, culture, needs, and stakeholders make this a vastly intricate process. It is further complicated by a
need for broad participation; such participation allows for a wider range of perspectives and information
to be brought to the analysis and promotes higher levels of commitment to decisions and outcomes.
23
Vol. 16, No. 2
Issues of both logistics and dynamics, however, quickly surface and expand geometrically as larger and
larger groups of stakeholders are invited to participate.
High
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Mixed
Scanning
Developmental/
Goal Free
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
Low
Comprehensive
Rational
Bounded
Rational
Degree of Comprehensiveness
High
Figure 4. Rational planning models, by degree of comprehensiveness and amount of
resources needed for the planning process.
The term comprehensive is applied to this planning model because of its underlying principle that
it is essential to fully understand the environment and the organization and to consider and select from a
maximum range of goals, strategies, and actions. To this end, the typical opening gambit of each phase
of the model is some variant of brainstorming, a technique whose primary rules are that all ideas are
equally valuable for consideration and that no attempt at censoring or limiting ideas should be made until
all ideas have been brought forth. Once all ideas have been generated, the rational aspect of the model
assumes a pre-eminent role. Criteria are established and decision-making tools, e.g., the nominal group
or q-sort techniques, are employed to arrive at a criteria-based prioritization of those ideas.
Although there are many variations of the comprehensive rational model, over the past three
decades the most common version has become known as strategic planning (see Beach & Lindahl,
2004a; Bryson, 1995, 1996, 1999a, 1999b; Cook, 1990; Mintzberg, 1994). Schools across the world
use this model, some every three to five years, others annually, and others as the initial stage of a largescale school reform or improvement process. Although considerable variations of the strategic planning
model exist, the differences tend to be more in the exact number and nature of the steps explicated
rather than in true conceptual issues.
Perhaps the most widely known version of the strategic planning model is that presented by Cook
(1990). His simplified, step-by-step materials and widely attended workshops have facilitated the spread
of the popularity of strategic planning in schools. The basic steps to his model are:
Educational Planning
24
1. Identify shared beliefs
2. Define the school’s mission
3. Establish the parameters for the plan
4. Conduct an internal analysis of the school
5. Conduct an external analysis of the school’s environment
6. Define the objectives for the plan
7. Identify and select strategies for attaining the objectives.
The strengths of this model are its comprehensiveness and provision for the participation of a
wide array of stakeholders; however, these very strengths can be debilitating weaknesses when time and
resources are not abundant or when there is not a need for such a broad organizational and environmental
scan. For example, how often do traditional public elementary schools really need to engage in profound
reflection on their mission? Their missions are well-established and generally immutable; why devote
time and resources to revisiting them? Even the goals of most schools tend not to vary extensively over
time. Similarly, school resources tend to be so limited, federal and state regulations so restrictive, and
parental and community expectations so fixed and powerful that brainstorming and consideration of
alternatives beyond a restricted range can be more frustrating than fruitful.
When, then, can strategic planning be used most appropriately? Certainly, in designing the focus
of schools with more flexibility to fill distinctive roles, e.g., alternative, magnet, charter, or private
schools, strategic planning might offer considerable benefits. When there are tumultuous changes in
communities, e.g., extremely rapid shifts in size, wealth, or composition, it can also be very useful. If
little consideration has been given to the external and internal environments of a school for an extended
period of time, e.g., a decade, it may be useful to engage in this more comprehensive process to renew
understandings and commitments. However, in situations of relative stability, like those surrounding
most public schools, the use of a comprehensive rational planning model may be akin to assembling the
armies of Genghis Khan to repel a lone invader.
The comprehensive rational planning model, however, represents only one extreme of the rational
planning model continuum. Other options exist for conditions that do not call for that degree of extremity.
Today, most planners would consider Comprehensive Rationalism to be unusable and the term rationalism
has come to mean Bounded Rationalism.
The Bounded (Limited) Rational Model. As Simon (1982) explained, true comprehensive
rational planning or decision making is so complex that it exceeds the time, resources, or abilities of most
individuals or organizations (see, also, March, 1994; March & Simon, 1959; Simon, 1997). He noted
that, although rationality requires a complete knowledge and anticipation of the consequences that will
follow each choice, knowledge of consequences is always fragmentary and, in many cases, unknowable.
Second, because consequences lie in the future, imagination must replace experience in attaching values
to them, but values can be only imperfectly anticipated. Third, rationality requires a choice
between all possible solution alternatives, but in actual behavior only a few of these possible solution
alternatives ever come to mind (Simon, 1957). Furthermore, it is very inefficient to brainstorm and to
consider alternatives that clearly lie beyond the organization’s reach. For example, although the Reading
Recovery© program may yield positive results in improving the reading performance of a select group
of students, its highly labor-intensive design might make it financially infeasible for most schools to
consider as the primary delivery system for all reading instruction in the school. In other words, it lies
well outside the financial boundaries of the school and does not merit the consideration that should be
focused on alternatives that lie within those boundaries.
As a result of these constraints, March and Simon (1959) proposed modifications to comprehensive
rationalism that have become known as bounded or limited rationality. Although bounded rationalism does
not restrict choices to as limited a range of diversions from the status quo as the incremental model,
neither does it promote the exemption from limitations inherent in the comprehensive rational model.
Instead, it posits that, in most cases, attention is best focused on a restricted set of core issues, conditions,
and alternatives that lie within the range of feasibility of the organization and its stakeholders. A school
might well benefit from cutting its pupil/teacher ratio by 75%, but this is such a financially infeasible
25
Vol. 16, No. 2
alternative that exploring it merely frustrates participants and wastes time and effort that would be
better allocated to exploring other alternatives. Although many forces may be interacting in the school’s
environment, from globalization to global warming, federal legislation (e.g., No Child Left Behind), state
regulations (e.g., new high school exit exams), or shifts in the demographics of the school’s student body
may represent such immediate and potentially serious issues as to warrant excluding the more global
issues from a school’s planning discussion at a given point in time. Although imposing such boundaries or
accepting intuitively self-imposed limitations may result in a less than optimal decision, the organization
and its members may choose to satisfice, trading off savings in time, effort, and resources for a feasible
and potentially reasonably effective plan rather than for an optimal one.
The bounded rational model would be least effective in a situation where a school is faced with
dire consequences for failing to produce specific results after repeated planning efforts. Such a situation
may require breaking boundaries or perceptions and limitations and seeking radical solutions that
would normally lie outside the limits of bounded rational planning. For example, several large urban
districts have surrendered control of their problematic public schools to privatization; others have placed
individual schools under the direct control of a local community board rather than the district’s school
board. Other schools have closed, dismissing or re-assigning all faculty and staff, and then re-constituted
themselves with entirely new faculties and staffs. Virtual high schools have been created that use
computer-based distance education as their primary delivery system, with vastly different administrative
structures and policies than traditional schools. It is unlikely that any of these alternatives would have
been considered when using a tightly bounded rational model. For example, however, if the school
reform effort is designed to increase the reading performance of a school’s or district’s students, bounded
rational planning would be a highly feasible choice. It would allow the reform leaders to consider a
variety of proven reform models designed to accomplish this one, specific goal, to compare and contrast
their previous successes, resource demands, compatibility with the school’s faculty and culture, etc.,
without considering the wider range of reform models that extend well beyond this focused reading
improvement goal.
The Incremental Planning Model
The incremental planning model, which Lindblom (1959) termed Successive Limited
Comparisons and which is commonly known as “the art of muddling through,” minimizes the amount
of information and decision making needed. Decision makers arrive at their choices after considering
only a limited number of options. Basically, the incremental planning model accepts the status quo
as the baseline and calls for small (incremental) advances in the direction of previously-established
organizational goals (Chadwick, 1978; Lasserre, 1974; Mann, 1975; Swanson, 1974). Once general
agreement is reached among the key stakeholders, the planning process proceeds to implementation.
It actively strives to deviate only marginally from past practice (Beach & McInerney, 1986). A strong
advantage of this planning model is that it requires relatively little participation, time, or resources for
the planning process. Perhaps even more significantly, it is a model that preserves the vast majority
of the status quo, thereby reducing the magnitude of change asked of organizational members at any
given time. Because the majority of organizational members can be expected to resist large-scale
change, and because large-scale changes present a far greater risk of chaos and failure than smaller,
incremental change, this model offers certain intuitive levels of comfort. Superintendents frequently
use this as a budget planning model, requesting an annual budget that presumes the previous year’s
budget as a baseline and calls for an incremental advance of X% to cover inflation, salary or fringe
benefit increases, district growth, and new programming (see Wildavsky, 1975).
One great disadvantage of the incremental planning model is that it is incapable of producing
rapid, large-scale change. If a school has been producing failing scores on state-mandated examinations
and is about to suffer embarrassing corrective measures unless a sharp improvement occurs within the
next school year, the incremental model would be an improper choice. Consequently, this model would
likely not be an appropriate choice when initiating a large-scale school reform effort. It would, however,
be a more appropriate choice for fine tuning the on-going action or operational planning during the
implementation phase of such a school reform effort.
Educational Planning
26
Other flaws of the incremental model center on its ability to maintain a focus on viable organizational
goals. Organizational goals tend to change over time; because of the slow pace of change previewed by
this model, it is possible that goals will change before being attained. Also, unless extreme care is taken
to constantly focus on the goals of the organization, the slow pace of change can lead to a phenomenon
similar to that of hikers in a desert who have no meaningful landmarks to steer their direction. Because
one leg is typically marginally stronger than the other, hikers will tend to walk in an extended circle,
rather than being able to follow a linear path. However, for schools in highly stable environments, for
many planning tasks these flaws are not fatal, and incremental planning can be an excellent approach to
annual budgeting for ongoing expenses, such as transportation, utilities, and insurance. In most schools,
even departmental, grade level, or classroom budget planning is generally done on an incremental basis
rather than on a more detailed rational basis, e.g., zero base budgeting.
Budgeting is not the only area for which incremental planning is an appropriate choice. Under
stable conditions and when the school is in the late implementation or institutionalization phases of a
specific reform effort, schools may elect not to revisit earlier planning decisions, but rather merely to
seek an incremental increase in specific test scores, attendance rates, graduation rates, or similar output
measures. This may imply only minor adjustments to existing curricular or instructional processes, with
little or no change in school structures or policies.
The Mixed-Scanning Model
Etzioni (1967) saw the value of combining the concepts of the incremental and bounded rational
models in an organization’s overall planning process, capitalizing on the strengths of each. This mixedscanning model reflects Etzioni’s recognition that an organization’s planning process need not be
monolithic. There are aspects of the planning process that may best be served by the incremental model;
however, there are other aspects that merit more extensive consideration and may require more than
incremental change; for these, a bounded or comprehensive rational planning process is more appropriate.
This combination is known as mixed-scanning. An example is illustrated when a district maintains a
continuing survey of pending legislation (the scanning) and becomes very focused or comprehensive in
dealing with concerns revealed when that scan uncovers legislation that can have a serious impact on
the district.
Through frustrating episodes of trial-and-error, many school-based planning teams have discovered
the efficacy of Etzioni’s mixed-scanning model. After attempting to address all planning through even a
bounded rational model, such teams often find themselves devoting seemingly limitless time and energy
to issues that have not been previously problematic. This has often led them to the axiomatic conclusion,
“If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it!” In other words, teams should use an incremental planning approach
to those issues and reserve the more comprehensive or bounded rational approach for key issues that
warrant greater attention and which the school-based planning teams feel are satisfying and useful to
explore. As this model is essentially incorporates elements of two other rational models, some planning
theorists no longer consider it a separate model, but rather a philosophy illustrating the wisdom of
combining various planning models in order to capitalize on their unique strengths and weaknesses.
The planning models above are all essentially goal-based and rational in nature. A significantly
different approach, one far more organizationally culture-based than goal-oriented planning, exists – the
developmental planning model.
The Developmental Planning Model
The developmental planning model focuses less on identifying highly specific, quantifiable,
organizational goals and taking unified actions to attain those goals than on identifying the shared positive
values and beliefs of the organization and promoting a variety of individual and group efforts that are
consonant with those values and beliefs (see Clark, 1981; Clark, Lotto, & Astuto, 1989; McCaskey,
1974; Senge, 1990). In an effort to distinguish developmental from rational planning, Clark (1981)
referred to this model as goal-free; however, this term can be deceptive to school leaders not well versed
in this model. Organizations that employ developmental planning have goals; they are just less specific
than in those organizations using more rational planning models. To differentiate these broader goals
27
Vol. 16, No. 2
from their counterparts in rational planning models, McCaskey (1974) referred to them as domains or
directions rather than goals. For example, as elementary schools might choose the direction of improving
students’ reading abilities while encouraging a love of reading, a middle school might choose to work
in the domain of promoting students’ integration of content across subject areas, or a high school might
pursue the direction of student mastery of content at high levels of the cognitive taxonomy.
The developmental planning model recognizes that individual teachers, teachers from different
subject areas or grade levels, or teams of teachers might well prefer to approach these directions or
domains differently, yet each might be quite appropriate and potentially successful. Rather than
using a rational approach in selecting from among these approaches or prioritizing among them, the
developmental model would encourage all of them as long as each is faithful to the defined, shared,
positive values and beliefs of the organization’s culture.
For example, a school’s culture may include a strong value for challenging each student to attain to
the maximum of his or her individual ability level. As long as a teacher’s efforts promote student inquiry
at high cognitive levels, then such efforts would be supported as being consonant with the developmental
plan. One group of teachers familiar with the development of higher level thinking skills might opt for
an action research project as part of their staff development. The principal might select key readings on
higher level thinking skills and lead, or appoint a teacher leader to guide, a group of less experienced
teachers in discussions of those readings and how they might be applied in the classroom. Such attention
to individual needs is a factor that tends to differentiate developmental from rational planning models.
Although the developmental planning model clearly arises from the field of organizational culture,
it overlaps with the field of organizational development as well. For example, a school might have the
shared values of promoting student participation across the full range of the school’s curriculum and of
providing individual, continuous teacher communication, encouragement, and feedback to each student.
Planning discussions, however, might reveal that the school’s structures do not currently align well with
these values. As part of their developmental planning effort, the school might choose to pilot a structural
change in which the student body and teacher corps are sub-divided into relatively independent teams,
with teachers of each team sharing a common planning period to conduct staffing discussions on student
performance and progress, to plan integrated lessons and assignments, and to plan for team teaching,
etc. Essentially each group of students would remain together through all their classes, acting as a cohort
within the larger school. They might be assigned an advisor from among the teachers serving their team.
Each team might approach this restructuring somewhat differently, with the school’s directional goals
and value system providing the basic parameters within which they could operate. The principal would
encourage experimentation within these parameters and provide opportunities for discussions among
teams to share the successes and failures of ongoing faculty and organizational development.
Obviously, the developmental planning model is far less rigidly structured than its rational
counterparts. It requires great professionalism on the part of organizational members and demands
cultural insight and leadership skills on the part of school leaders. It is potentially most useful in stable
school environments with capable and committed faculty and staff. It is also useful in situations where
it is unlikely that a group of faculty could agree upon the goals of more rational planning model or on
alternative actions or when time and resources do not favor more extensive, rational planning. Its focus
is on the long-term evolutionary learning of the organization, what Senge (1990) termed the learning
organization. As such, it is not a model that lends itself to situations in which there is great, immediate
pressure from the environment or considerable pressure within the school itself. In short, it is perhaps
better suited to situations calling for school improvement or evolution than to those calling for school
reform. In healthy school cultures, it is a model that can be used continually for certain aspects of the
school planning, in conjunction with rational planning models for other specific issues.
With three basic planning models, all of which are appropriate for schools to choose under
specific circumstances, the question arises as to how to best choose among them, other than through
the administrator’s native intuition. The sections that follow attempt to provide a partial answer to that
question, framing the planning function within the larger context of the school improvement process.
Educational Planning
28
THE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROCESS
For purposes of simplification, the school improvement process is presented in three phases:
planning, implementation, and institutionalization, with cybernetic feedback loops linking all phases
(see Figure 1). These phases correspond to Lewin’s (1951, 1997) paradigm of unfreezing the organism
from its current status, moving the organism to its desired status, and refreezing the organism at that
status (see Figure 5). Clark, Lotto, and Astuto (1989) referred to these as adoption, implementation, and
institutionalization.
Again for purposes of simplification, these three phases are presented as sequential; in practice,
true linearity seldom occurs. Instead, because many of the challenges schools face are somewhat
ambiguous and highly complex (Leithwood, 1994; Nir, 2000), have multiple correct solutions (Wagner,
1994), and must be solved in contexts that are highly variable (Leithwood & Steinbach, 1994), the
school improvement process must be somewhat flexible (Lane, 1995). Consequently, there are often
overlaps between the three phases and schools often find it necessary to return to the planning phase
after implementation has begun, as new information or feedback from the formative evaluation of the
implementation process (Scriven, 1991) become available. Also, because schools are open, organic
systems (Burns & Stalker, 1961), they remain susceptible to external pressures and internal changes;
such pressures or changes may occur in the midst of a planned school improvement process. When this
occurs, it becomes necessary to revisit the planning phase to factor these changes into the plan.
Lewin: Re-freezing
Lewin: Moving
TIME
Lewin: Unfreezing
Figure 5. A depiction of Lewin’s change phases.
The Planning Phase of the School Improvement Process
Typically, this phase begins when the school’s leadership recognizes that a need exists for significant
organizational change(s) and that the nature or scope of this change lies outside the school’s standard
29
Vol. 16, No. 2
repertoire. In such a case the principal must then consider initiating a formal school improvement process.
One of the earliest decisions that must be made is which planning model(s) would be most appropriate
vis-à-vis the nature and urgency of the contemplated change(s) and the school’s culture, climate, history,
and current conditions.
For most large-scale school improvement processes, the use of a combination of bounded rational
and developmental models is appropriate. The first step in the bounded rational planning process is
for the principal to determine the membership of the planning team. Membership on this team should
be based on a variety of factors, such as the individual’s unique knowledge or expertise related to the
planning process or to the contemplated change areas, the availability of the individual to participate in
the planning process (e.g., teachers often do not have sufficient free time or flexibility in their schedules
to permit their participation unless special accommodations can be made), the overall size of the
team (sufficient to provide diversity of thought but not so large as to preclude each member’s active
participation), representation of divergent opinions and approaches (to avoid what Janis, 1982, termed
Groupthink), and representation of the leadership of key stakeholder groups (to facilitate implementation
and institutionalization).
The first determination to be made by this planning team is precisely what problem is being faced.
It is essential in this process to clearly separate means from ends (Simon, 1957). This helps to avoid
identifying an appealing solution and then framing a problem to justify implementing that solution.
Once the nature of the problem has been properly defined, the planning team can project the nature
of the change that would need to be made to address the problem. This can lead to the establishment
of goals for the school improvement process. However, before the planning team proceeds to the
identification of alternative approaches to pursuing those goals, certain internal and external evaluations
should be conducted. The first of these is a simple Force Field Analysis (FFA), based on the theoretical
work of Kurt Lewin (1951, 1972, 1997).
Lewin’s FFA has become accepted as a decision making tool for policy makers and administrators
seeking systems approaches to increased efficiency in problem solving, change, program planning,
or Total Quality Management (Brassard & Ritter, 1994; Caroselli, 1992, Chambers-Corkrum, 1998;
Doyle & Straus, 1986; Higgins, 1994; Kayser, 1994; Moody, 1983; Perry, 1997; Phillips & Berquist,
1987; Quinlivan-Hall & Renner, 1990; Sanders, 1977; Stratton, 1991; Viability Corporate, 1994). The
underlying premise of Lewin’s theory is that needs keep a system in tension. As individuals’ and groups’
needs are satisfied, that tension is released (Lewin, 1951, pp. 5-6). Individuals or groups continually act
to satisfy their needs; their behavior is determined by the tensions acting on them at each specific point
in time (p. 19). Over time, the tensions change, as do behaviors.
To better analyze these tensions and behaviors at specific moments and across time, Lewin developed
the FFA model, defining a force field as a “distribution of forces in space” (p. 39) and recognizing that
each analysis should be confined to those forces oriented in relation to the same goal (p. 40). To examine
social force fields, Lewin posited that it is necessary to ascertain the strength and direction of the forces
relative to the needs and group’s goal(s).
Lewin viewed all force fields as being in equilibrium or quasi-equilibrium at any given moment in
time. He characterized this phenomenon as a series of opposing forces pushing toward a goal (driving
forces) or inhibiting movement toward that goal (restraining forces)(p. 259). Figure 6 depicts these
opposing forces.
Although it is possible to use FFA for snapshot analyses of an operating force field, it is particularly
useful as a diagnostic tool for orienting planned change. Lewin wrote:
This technical analysis makes it possible to formulate in a more exact way problems of planned
social changes and of resistance to change. It permits general statements concerning some aspects of
the problem of selecting specific objectives in bringing about change, concerning different methods
of bringing about the same amount of change, and concerning differences in the secondary effects
of these methods. (p. 234)
In analyzing force fields in the planning stage, Lewin advocated assigning numerical weightings to
each set of opposing forces, to indicate the relative strengths of these forces in maintaining equilibrium
at that level (as in Figure 6). These numbers, in turn, provide insight into which sets of forces might be
Educational Planning
30
most significant in attempting to unfreeze the system. Lewin (1972, p. 67) noted that this change could
be brought about by increasing the set of driving forces or reducing the restraining forces; however, he
advocated the latter approach on that grounds that it would decrease tension within the system, whereas
increasing the driving force would likely increase that tension. In Figure 6 the forces have been assigned
an estimated strength. The sum of the driving forces is 14, while the total restraining force is 16. That is,
the restraining forces are slightly stronger, raising questions about the ability to make effective change.
Brassard and Ritter (1994, p. 63) identified the strengths of FFA as its ability to present both positive
and negative aspects of a situation in a manner that would allow comparison, thereby forcing people to
think of all aspects of the desired change, encourage people to agree on relative priorities among factors,
and to engage in honest reflection on the underlying roots of a problem and its solution. ChambersCorkrum (1998, p. 114) recommended a basic rational approach to the use of FFA.
FORCE FIELDS
3
2
4
Restraining Forces
= 16
11
3
3
4
2
2
Equilibrium
2
3
1
= 14
Driving Forces
Figure 6. A depiction of Lewin’s force-field concept, showing relative strengths of
driving and restraining forces.
An internal evaluation that must be made at this point in the planning process is of the school’s
overall readiness for change (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993; Beach, 1983; Beckhard & Harris,
1987; Berman & McLaughlin, 1977; Bishop, 1977; Cunningham et al., 2002; Evans, 2001; Fullan, 1991;
Hall & Hord, 2006; Hopkins, 1990; Huberman & Miles, 1984; Kotter, 1996; Louis & Miles, 1990; Pond
Armenakis, & Green, 1984; Purkey & Smith, 1993; Rosenblum & Louis, 1979; Rossman, Corbett, &
Firestone, 1988; Schmuck & Schmuck, 1988). The concept of organizational readiness for change has
a direct link to Lewin’s FFA model, as Lewin (1972), himself, noted: “The study of the conditions for
change begins appropriately with an analysis of the conditions for ‘no change,’ that is, for the state of
equilibrium” (p. 65).
Assessing an organization’s readiness for change is generally considered an indispensable early
step in any organizational improvement process (Armenakis et al., 1993; Beach, 1983; Beckhard &
Harris, 1987; Cunningham et al., 2002; Fullan, 1991; Hall & Hord, 2006; Huberman & Miles, 1984;
Louis & Miles, 1990; Pond et al., 1984; Prochaska et al., 1994; Prochaska et al., 1997). Beckhard and
Harris (1987, p. 59) advocated that this assessment begin with the identification and establishment of
priorities within the full constellation of possible change that might be undertaken, followed by an
analysis of which organizational subsystems might be most affected by the change. The final step in
this assessment process would be to evaluate the readiness and capability of those subsystems for the
contemplated change.
31
Vol. 16, No. 2
Fullan (1991) examined schools’ practical and conceptual capacity to initiate, develop, or adopt a
given innovation and determined that such readiness was derived from both individual and organizational
factors. On the individual level, Fullan found that people were most ready to accept change if they
perceived that change to address a perceived need, found the change to be reasonable, possessed
the knowledge and skills needed to implement the change successfully, and perceived that they had
sufficient time in their work schedules to engage in the change. On the organizational level, he found that
those organizations whose culture is compatible with change, and those who have sufficient facilities,
equipment, materials, and supplies to implement the change, and those who are not undergoing other
major change efforts or crises are most likely to be successful in implementing the desired change.
These findings are very similar to those of other researchers. For example, the demonstrable need
for change was cited in Armenakis et al. (1993) and Cunningham et al. (2002). Fullan’s individual factor
of perceiving the change as being necessary ties closely to the Concerns-Based Adoption Model of Hall
and Hord (2006) and to the models of Prochaska et al. (1994) and Prochaska et al. (1997). Armenakis et
al. (1993) and Cunningham et al. (2002) also cited an organizational culture in which people participate
in the change process, a sense of self-efficacy to accomplish the change (see, also, Pond et al., 1984), and
a perceived positive benefit/risk ratio for implementing the change. These authors, as well as Huberman
and Miles (1984) and Louis and Miles (1990), echoed Fullan’s emphasis on participant competence
to implement change and added the need for the organization to have good relationships among its
members and a strong social support system, factors also cited by Beach (1983), who compiled the work
of Bishop (1977), Hopkins (1990), Purkey and Smith (1993), Rosenblum and Louis (1979), and Schmuck
and Schmuck (1988). Beach’s list of organizational variables promoting successful change included
leadership, staff stability, curriculum articulation and organization, staff development, district support
for the change, organizational climate, institutional history with change efforts, collegial relationships,
sense of community, clarity of goals and expectations, order and discipline, teacher demographics (age,
gender, educational level), ability for participants to observe the innovation in other settings prior to
implementation, and the flexibility of the planning process. Table 1 presents a summary of some of the
major research findings on individual and organizational readiness for change.
If the planning team determines that the school is essentially ready to change, it may proceed with
its planning process. If it determines that the school is not ready for change, it must decide whether to
conduct some capacity-building interventions to increase the school’s readiness prior to implementing
the change(s), or to postpone or forego the changes, altogether. As an example, consider a district having
problems in the area of reading. After a little scanning, a confirmation is made that the current reading
methodology is not producing desired results. A change would seem to be in order. Yet, the literature
offers few suggestions for improvement and the methodology used in other districts is similar to the one
now in use. It will, therefore, be difficult for teachers to become familiar with the processes needed for
improvement. The teachers, however, are reluctant to change in any case and have little understanding of
more current approaches to reading. It would be problematic to proceed directly with the implementation
of a new reading program. The district must decide against change (a problem in itself), or proceed with
change in the face of probable failure. An alternative does exist. This is to build organizational capacity
aimed at improving teachers’ understanding of modern reading initiatives while reducing teacher
concern. The Concerns Based Adoption Model of Hall and Hord (2006) offers an outstanding model for
issues of this nature.
If the team decides to proceed with its planning process, the next step is to utilize the results of the
FFA as a foundation for generating alternative means of attaining the goals, capitalizing on the driving
forces and reducing the restraining forces as much as possible. As March and Simon (1959) noted,
it is not necessary for this list to encompass all possible alternatives; it may focus on a more limited
range of alternatives that appear to be capable of producing the desired changes, lie within the resource
constraints of the school, and appear to be compatible with the deepest elements of the school’s culture.
The team may choose among these alternatives or bring them to the full faculty and staff of the school
for their opinion. Again, the chosen alternative(s) need not be proven to be the absolutely best choice; it
merely needs to satisfice.
Although the planning phase is by no means completed at this point, it is crucial for the team to
Educational Planning
32
forecast the implementation and institutionalization phases before proceeding to build its operational or
action plan for implementing the change. Much is known about the
implementation and institutionalization processes, but failure to incorporate this knowledge into the
action plan can readily doom the potential success of the school improvement process.
Table 1
Factors Influencing Organizational Readiness for Change
Factor
Supporting Knowledge Base
Scope and reasonableness
of change
Armenakis et al., 1993; Berman & McLaughlin,
1977; Cunningham et al., 2003; Fullan, 1991
Commitment of organizational
members to the change
Hall & Hord, 2006; Huberman & Miles; 1984;
Louis & Miles, 1990; Prochaska et al., 1994;
Prochaska et al., 1997
Leadership
Beach, 1983; Kotter, 1996
District and administrative
support for the change
Beach, 1983; Huberman & Miles, 1984; Louis &
Miles, 1990
Organizational culture and
climate
Armenakis et al., 1993; Beach, 1983; Beckhard
& Harris, 1987; Cunningham et al., 2002; Evans,
2001; Pond et al., 1984
Staff skills and staff
development
Armenakis et al., 1993; Beach, 1983;
Cunningham et al., 2002; Fullan, 1991;
Huberman & Miles, 1984; Louis & Miles, 1990
Institutional history and current
involvement with
change efforts
Beach, 1983; Fullan, 1991; Louis & Miles, 1990
Collegial relationships and
sense of community
Beach, 1983; Cunningham et al., 2002; Huberman
& Miles, 1984
Clear vision, goals, and
objectives
Beach, 1983; Beckhard & Harris, 1987;
Cunningham et al., 2002; Kotter, 1996; Poza,
1985
Ability to observe innovation
in other setting and access to
consultants
Beach, 1983; Huberman & Miles, 1984
Adequate resources, facilities,
equipment, materials, and supplies
Fullan, 1991; Huberman & Miles, 1984; Louis &
Miles, 1990
Communication
Kotter, 1996; Louis & Miles, 1990; Poza, 1985
Adequate time to implement
Fullan, 1991; Rossman et al., 1988
Rewards for changing
Poza, 1985; Rossman et al., 1988
Flexibility of the plan
Beach, 1983
33
Vol. 16, No. 2
Order and discipline
Beach, 1983
Staff stability
Beach, 1983
Curriculum articulation and
organization
Beach, 1983
Degree of conflict re: change
Louis & Miles, 1990
General organizational
preparedness
Huberman & Miles, 1984
Jobs that empower
Cunningham et al., 2002
At the heart of the implementation and institutionalization phases is the fact that large-scale school
improvements call for changes that will have pronounced effects on human beings. Because human
beings are both emotional and cognitive in their reactions to change, it is crucial to preview how the
change will affect the individuals and groups who comprise the school (Evans, 2001; Fullan, 1991;
Louis & Miles, 1990). For example, as Hall and Hord (2006) explained, members of the school will not
address the change uniformly; rather, they will experience the stages of concern at different times and in
different strengths. The lowest stage of concern on Hall and Hord’s hierarchy is awareness. At this stage,
although the teacher is conscious of the proposed change, he or she has not made a personal commitment
to become involved with the change. The next stage is informational; in this stage, the teacher expresses
a general awareness of the change and an interest in learning more. This gives way to the personal stage,
in which the teacher begins to experience some concerns about his or her ability to effect the change
successfully. In the management phase, the teacher becomes more proficient with the new processes and
tasks and begins both to gather and to utilize information and resources to become more proficient with
the new challenges. During the consequences stage, the teacher focuses on the impact the changes are
having on the students and their performance and seeks ways to employ the new processes to improve
the benefits for the students. In the collaboration stage, the teacher goes beyond his or her personal
implementation of the change and seeks collaboration with other teachers and administrators to enhance
the effects of the new processes on the students, faculty, and school. Finally, in the refocusing stage, the
teacher attempts to gain a comprehensive overview of the changes and their effects, so that this insight
can guide future changes or actions.
The early pioneering work by Rogers on the implementation and diffusion of innovations developed
much of the ground work for understanding how change unfolds. Rogers’ (2003) work led to the finding
that 2.5% of the individuals in organizations are the types of people who actively seek and promote new
approaches; these are the innovators. Their lead is followed by a group (13.5%) of early adopters, who
have a propensity to recognize the potential of the new ideas and to take the risk of being among the
first to experiment with them. Together, these two vanguard groups provide the modeling and mentoring
necessary to convince another 34% (the early majority) of the organization’s members to implement the
change(s). Over time, this half of the organization and the successes they have with the new approaches
influence yet another 34% (the late majority) to join in the implementation, leaving only 16% (the
laggards), who may not ever really implement the changes. Joyce and Showers (1988) found similar
patterns but labeled their groups as gourmet omnivores, active and passive consumers, and reticents. The
action plan developed by the team to close out the planning phase of the school improvement process
must take into account these stages of concern and adoption and incorporate activities to encourage and
inform progress accordingly. It must be flexible and cyclical enough to allow individuals or small groups
to acquire the necessary information, skills, or staff development as they, personally, experience that
stage of concern or begin to implement the change(s), rather than assuming that the school’s members
will all reach each stage together.
Similarly, much is known about the institutionalization process. For example, Datnow, Hubbard,
and Mehan (2002) identified a variety of factors that influence the extent to which changes become
Educational Planning
34
institutionalized in schools. These include: (a) the need for the change to be introduced authentically,
rather than forced through top-down coercion; (b) the need to build commitment and ownership of
the change(s) among the teachers; (c) the need to be flexible in implementing the change(s), rather
than imposing one means for all teachers and students; (d) the need to ensure that sufficient resources,
including the precious resource of time, are available to implement the reform effectively; (e) the need
to ensure that the change(s) are compatible with and support the school’s efforts to perform well on
high-stakes accountability measures such as standardized testing; and (f) the need to align policies and
procedures with the changes to be implemented. These are factors that can be incorporated into the
operational or action plan, if the planning team is conscious of them and gives them the attention they
demand.
With these forward-looking considerations in mind, the planning team is ready to convert into
an actual document its decisions about which primary alternatives to pursue. This would include a
discussion of the mission, goals, values, etc., that have been established, as well as an overview of the
process(es) to be utilized and the specific outcomes expected. This would be followed by some form
of task analysis, which would lead to the articulation in the plan of the specific steps or activities that
must be undertaken to achieve the desired change. This tool utilizes a backward mapping approach in
determining what tasks must be undertaken by starting with the final objective and working backward
to the beginning. A simple example of this is represented in Figure 7. This process starts with the basic
goal or objective, Level 1, and then breaks this objective down into a second level of basic components
necessary to obtain the Level 1 objective. This is then repeated for each of the components in Level 2,
etc., until the planner is comfortable that each of the final level’s components can be considered in terms
of the simple activity, or small set of activities that can be assigned to individuals for completion. Note
that each level defines the totality of the objective. Therefore any single level, and only one level, can
be used to define what is required for completing an action plan. The number of levels and the degree of
detail in each is arbitrary and at the discretion of the planners. In this process the planner arrives, finally,
at a sufficiently detailed set of activities that can be undertaken in creating the initial objective. This is a
rational process that requires significant decision making as it progresses.
This process would create the information that flows into an action plan that details what steps must
be taken, when, by whom, with what resources, and how their progress is to be measured (National Study
of School Evaluation, 1997). Such planning tools as Gantt Charts, Budgets, and even PERT Charts can be
very useful in laying out action plans, especially for large-scale, complex improvement initiatives. The
task analysis itself would not generally be considered to be part of the plan. The action plan, however, is
an integral part of the planning documentation.
An important part of the Action Plan is the provisions it contains to ensure timely formative
evaluation throughout the implementation phase, as well as its provisions for the information gleaned
from those evaluations to be incorporated into the revisions of that action plan, as necessary. As these
actions occur during the implementation phase, it is appropriate to conclude the discussion of the
planning phase of the school improvement process and move to the planning undertaken during the
implementation and institutionalization phases of the change effort.
35
Vol. 16, No. 2
Task Analysis
(Abbreviated Work Breakdown Structure)
Create
Change
Start with Level 1:
The Objective
Level 1
Then with Level 2: What must be completed in order to have change?
Level 2
Outline
Problem(s)
Planning
PrePlanning
Implementation
Then with Level 3: What must be done in order to complete planning?
Level 3
Articulate
Goals
Nominal
Group
Technique
Narrow Alternatives
Cost/Benefit
Analysis
Figure 7. A basic task analysis.
Planning during the Implementation and Institutionalization Phases
As stated previously, the Action Plan developed during the planning phase of the school improvement
process must be considered a living document, subject to change as new information becomes available
or as significant changes occur within the system or its environment. To inform any changes in the
action plan, it is essential that a solid formative evaluation system be designed during the planning
phase and rigorously implemented throughout implementation and even periodically after the changes
have become institutionalized. The National Study for School Evaluation (1997) recommended that
monitoring of a plan be carried out as an ongoing process throughout implementation and that a formal
review of progress be undertaken annually (p. 6-1). Because the improvement of student learning is
the ultimate purpose of all school improvement planning, all data on student performance should be
reviewed on an ongoing basis during implementation, to determine as soon as possible if there are trends
in improvement or declines that might be associated with the planned interventions.
In addition, it is essential that the planning team gather qualitative information to guide any revisions
in the action plan. The National Study for School Evaluation (1997) provided an excellent set of guiding
questions for these formative evaluations:
1. Which action steps contained in the school improvement plan appear to have been successful?
Does the effectiveness of these actions steps hold implications for other school improvement
objectives? How can the school build on the success of these action steps?
2. Which action steps contained in the plan that originally appeared to be promising did not
fulfill their expectations? How can these action steps be most appropriately modified without
compromising the goal of achieving the objectives of the school improvement plan?
Educational Planning
36
3. Are there any additional action steps that need to be incorporated in the school improvement
plan to achieve the objectives for improvement?
4. Have there been any surprises? If so, what lessons have been learned?
5. What are the insights that have emerged thus far in the school improvement process? What is
the school learning about its own capacity to improve?
6. How does the school plan to sustain the commitment to continuous improvement? What steps
have been taken to support the ongoing process of school improvement?
7. Have any new or emerging targets for improving student performance been identified by the
school? If so, how will these school improvement objectives be addressed in updating and
refining the school improvement plan? (pp. 6-1 - 6-2)
The information gleaned from these evaluations must be utilized to refine or adjust the process (The
National Study for School Evaluation, 1997) in as timely a manner as possible, yet the planning team
must be realistic in its expectations of changes in student learning. Improvement takes time!
Complementary Developmental Planning
Parallel to the rational planning process, it is appropriate to conduct a complementary developmental
planning process. Rather than focusing on the goals of the school improvement process, developmental
planning seeks to resolve the tensions that naturally arise from school improvement efforts and that can
readily inhibit the desired changes (Beach, 1993, pp. 651-652). In essence, developmental planning
involves shaping the school improvement process to be maximally compatible with the healthy aspects
of the school’s climate and culture and improving the less healthy aspects of that climate and culture to
be more supportive of the desired changes (Lindahl, 2006).
Although a few critics (e.g., Allen, 1985) question the importance of climate and culture in the
school improvement process, some have questioned whether it is feasible to change an existing climate
or culture (Quinn, 1980b; Sathe, 1985; Wilkins & Patterson, 1985). The majority of the authorities in the
field, however, recognize the pivotal role that climate and culture assumes in large-scale organizational
change and contend that climate and culture can be shaped through careful assessment, planning,
and administrative actions (Berman & McLaughlin, 1978; Deal, 1985, 1993; Deal & Peterson, 1994;
Hargreaves, 1994; Harris, 2002; Hopkins, 2001; Rosenholtz, 1989; Sarason, 1996; Stoll & Fink, 1999).
Even in healthy school cultures, some resistance to change can be anticipated, especially if the
change requires changes in beliefs, assumptions, or core values (Connor & Lake, 1988; Wilkins &
Patterson, 1985). Less functional school cultures, e.g., those with an inward focus, short-term focus, low
morale, fragmentation, inconsistency, emotional outbursts, and subculture values that take precedence
over shared organizational values (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Deal & Peterson, 1994), can make successful
large-scale organizational change virtually impossible. Although such organizational cultures can be
changed over time, the more entrenched, dysfunctional, and widely shared the culture, the more time
and effort required to accomplish this. In such cases, it is necessary to focus on the specific key values
or assumptions most paradoxical to the proposed change(s), rather than attempting to modify the entire
school culture (Harris, 2002). It is also important to recognize that school cultures are not necessarily
monolithic; sub-cultures may well be present and have stronger allegiances than the overall school
culture (Cooper, 1988; Louis, 1985; Thompson & Luthans, 1990).
Planned changes to the school’s climate and/or culture can be brought about through revolutionary
or evolutionary means, or through a combination of these approaches (Wilkins & Patterson, 1985).
It is far easier to change the climate of a school than the culture, for the culture is much more deeply
embedded, therefore making it more difficult to both diagnose and alter (Connor & Lake, 1988; Lindahl,
2006; Rousseau, 1990; Schein, 1984, 1985a, 1985b, 1992). Culture involves philosophies, ideologies,
concepts, values, and norms (Connor & Lake, 1988; Kilmann, Saxton, & Sherpa, 1985; Wilkins &
Patterson, 1985), all of which can be very deeply and tenaciously held by individuals, sub-groups, and
the school as a whole. It is for this very reason that planned school improvements that contain elements
in conflict with a school’s culture are less likely to be successfully implemented or institutionalized than
changes that resonate with that culture.
37
Vol. 16, No. 2
There are occasions, however, when the changes needed are not fully coherent with the school’s
culture. In such cases, developmental planning must accompany the rational planning, for the school
leaders must shape the culture as part of the school improvement process. If new behaviors, attitudes,
values, and/or beliefs are required, they must be planned for and actively shaped. Concurrently, such
cultural changes may also require accompanying changes in the school’s structures, reward system,
technology, or tasks (Datnow et al., 2002).
To modify a school’s climate and culture, leaders must help to clarify its shared beliefs and values
and the extent to which these are consonant with the proposed changes (Leithwood, Jantzi, & Steinbeck,
1999). Leaders must consistently model any new beliefs and values associated with the proposed
changes (Deal & Peterson, 1993; Schein, 1992). They must establish the conditions for teachers, staff,
and students to experiment with the new processes without fear (Allen, 1985; Deal & Peterson, 1993;
Harris, 2002; Leithwood et al., 1999; Maher & Buck, 1993). They can selectively choose specific stories
to tell, highlighting heroes or heroines whose actions reflect the new values and beliefs and support the
planned improvements (Deal, 1993; Deal & Peterson, 1993; Schein, 1992). They can also create new
ceremonies or rituals to celebrate accomplishments with the new changes or to emphasize new values,
assumptions, or beliefs (Deal, 1993; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Deal & Peterson, 1993; Schein, 1992). In
short, through constant interactions, modeling, and planned interventions, school leaders can support the
rational planning process through developmental planning and interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In retrospect, Henri Fayol’s (1916) views on planning as a management function remain consistent
with best practice in schools today. Although he described an essentially rational planning model, his
observance of the need for management to help harmonize the organization’s efforts to meet the plan’s
goals can well be interpreted as a tacit advocacy for complementing that rational planning process with
a developmental planning counterpart. He clearly recognized the need for stakeholder groups to be
represented in the planning process, a strategy that remains essential today for political, implementation,
and institutionalization reasons. He also stressed the importance of ensuring that the operational aspects
of the plan be specified in a detailed action plan, and that this action plan be grounded in broaderlevel, longer-term considerations. Integrating the planning function with Fayol’s four other management
functions (organizing, commanding, coordinating, and controlling) helps to ensure that the plan would
lead to implementation and, hopefully, to institutionalization of the improvements into the school’s
culture and day-to-day activities.
REFERENCES
Adler, M. (1984). The Paideia program: An educational syllabus. New York. Macmillan.
Allen, R. F. (1985). Four phases for bringing about cultural change. In R. H. Kilman, M. J. Saxton, & R.
Serpa (Eds.), Gaining control of the corporate culture (pp. 332-350). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Allison, G. T. (1969). Conceptual models and the Cuban missile crisis. The American Political Science
Review, 63(3), 689-718.
American Association of School Administrators (1955). Staff relations in school administration.
Arlington, VA: Author.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational
change. Human Relations, 46, 681-703.
Banfield, E. C. (1959). Ends and means in planning. International Social Science Journal, 11(3), 361368.
Barnett, T. (2006). Management functions. Encyclopedia of Management. Retrieved on February 1, 2006
from: http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Log-Mar /Management-Functions.html
Beach, R. H. (1993, November). Emerging perspectives on planning and change processes. Journal of
School Leadership, 3(6), 646-665.
Beach, R. H., & Lindahl, R. A. (2004a). A critical review of strategic planning: Is it a panacea for public
education? Journal of School Leadership, 14(2), 211-234.
Beach, R. H., & Lindahl, R. A. (2004b). Identifying the knowledge base for school improvement
Planning and Changing, 35(1 & 2), 2-32.
Educational Planning
38
Beach, R. H., & Lindahl, R. A. (2000). New standards for the preparation of school administrators: What
conceptualization of educational planning do they portray? Planning and Changing, 31(1 & 2),
35-52.
Beach, R. H., & McInerney, W. D. (1986, Fall). Educational planning models and school district practice.
Planning and Changing, 17(3), 180-191.
Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. T. (1987). Organizational transitions: Managing complex change (2nd ed.).
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Benveniste, G. (1989). Mastering the politics of planning: Crafting credible plans and policies that make
a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change, Vol. VIII:
Implementing and sustaining innovations. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Bishop, J. M. (1977). Organizational influences on the work orientation of elementary teachers. Sociology
of Work and Occupations, 4, 171-208.
Brassard, M., & Ritter, D. (1994). The memory jogger II. Salem, NH: GOAL/QPC.
Brieve, F., Johnston, P., & Young, K. (1958). Educational planning. Worthington, OH: Charles A.
Jones.
Bryson, J. M. (1995). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to strengthening
and sustaining organizational achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bryson, J. M. (1996). Creating and implementing your strategic plan: A workbook for public and
nonprofit organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bryson, J. M. (1999a). A strategic planning process for public and non-profit organizations. In J. M.
Bryson (Ed.), Strategic management in public and voluntary services: A reader (pp.1-8). New
York: Pergamon.
Bryson, J. M. (1999b). Introduction. In J. M. Bryson (Ed.), Strategic management in public and voluntary
services: A reader (pp. vii-xv). New York: Pergamon.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Campbell, R. F., Cunningham, L. L., Nystrand, R. O., & Usdan, M. D. (1980). The organization and
control of American Schools. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., 1980.
Caroselli, M. (1992). Quality-driven designs: 36 activities to reinforce TQM concepts. San Diego:
Pfeiffer and Co.
Carroll, S. J., Jr., & Gillen, D. J. (1987) Are the classical management functions useful in describing
managerial work? Academy of Management Review, 12, 38-51.
Chadwick, G. (1978). A systems view of planning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Chambers-Corkrum, S. M. (1998). Structuring decision making: A study of structuring devices and their
application to the six steps of the Harvey-Bearley decision-making model. Doctoral dissertation,
University of La Verne, 1998). Retrieved on January 20, 2005 from: http: // wwwlib.umi.com/
dissertations/dlnow/9829201
Clark, D. L. (1981). In consideration of goal-free planning: The failure of traditional planning systems
in education. Educational Administration Quarterly, 17(3), 42-60.
Clark, D. L., Lotto, L. S., & Astuto, T. A. (1989). Effective schools and school improvement: A comparative
analysis of two lines of inquiry. In J. L. Burdin (Ed.), School leadership: A contemporary reader
(pp. 159-186). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Connor, P. E., & Lake, L. K. (1988). Managing organizational change. New York: Praeger.
Cook, W. J., Jr. (1990). Bill Cook’s strategic planning for America’s schools (rev. ed.). Arlington, VA:
The American Association of School Administrators.
Cooper, G. W. (1990) Contemporary educational planning practices: The evidence for the existence of a
hybrid theoretical paradigm (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Alabama, 1990). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 52/05, 1587.
Cooper, M. (1988). Whose culture is it, anyway? In A. Lieberman (Ed.), Building a professional culture
in schools (pp. 45-54). New York: Teachers College Press.
39
Vol. 16, No. 2
Cunningham, C. E., Woodward, C. A., Shannon, H. S., MacIntosh, J, Lendrum, B, Rosenbloom, D.,
& Brown, J. (2002). Readiness for organizational change: A longitudinal study of workplace,
psychological and behavioral consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 75, 377-392.
Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending reform: From one school to many. New York:
Routledge.
Deal, T. E. (1985). Cultural change: Opportunity, silent killer, or metamorphosis? In R. H. Kilman, M.J.
Saxton, & R. Serpa (Eds.), Gaining control of the corporate culture (pp. 292-331). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Deal, T. E. (1993). The culture of schools. In M. Shaskin & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational leadership
and school culture I (pp. 3–18). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Company.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate culture: The rites and symbols of corporate life.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1993). Strategies for building school cultures: Principals as symbolic
leaders. In M. Shaskin, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational leadership and school culture I (pp.
89-99). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Company.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (1994). The leadership paradox: Balancing logic and artistry in schools.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Doyle, M., & Straus, D. (1986). How to make meetings work. New York: Berkeley Publishing.
Drucker, P. F. (1974). Management: Tasks, responsibilities, practices. New York: Harper & Row.
Etzioni, A. (1967). Mixed-scanning: A “third” approach to decision-making. Public Administration
Review, 27, 418-424.
Evans, R. (2001). The human side of school change: Reform, resistance, and the real-life problems of
innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fayol, H. (1916; 1949). General and industrial administration. (Translated from the 1916 work in
French, entitled Administration industrielle et generale). New York: Pitman.
Fullan, M. G., with Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York: The Free Press.
Gregg, R. T. (1957). The administrative process. In R. F. Campbell & R. T. Gregg, (Eds.), Administrative
behavior in education. New York: Harper & Row.
Gulick, L., & Urwick, L. (Eds.) (1937) . Papers on the science of management. New York: Institute of
Public Administration
Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2006). Implementing change: patterns, principle, and potholes. (2nd ed.). Needham
Heights: MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers: Changing times. London: Cassell.
Harris, A. (2002). School improvement: What’s in it for schools? New York: Routledge Falmer.
Higgins, J. (1994). 101 creative problem-solving techniques. Winter Park, FL: The New Management
Publishing Company.
Hopfenberg, W., & Levin, H. (1993). The Accelerated Schools resource guide. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Hopkins, D. (2001). School improvement for real. London: Falmer Press.
Hopkins, D. (1990). Integrating staff development and school improvement: A study of teacher personality
and school climate. In B. Joyce (Ed.), Changing school culture through staff development (pp. 4170). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1984). Innovation up close: How school improvement works. Boston:
Kluwer Academic.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C.A.§ 1400 et seq.
Jacobson, P. B., Logsdon, J. D., & Wiegman, R. R. (1973). The principalship: New perspectives.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Educational Planning
40
Johnson, R. A., Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. S. (1967). The theory and management of systems (2nd ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through staff development: Fundamentals of
school renewal (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Kaufman, R. (1972). Educational systems planning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kayser, T. A. (1994). Building team power: How to unleash the collaborative genius of work teams. Burr
Ridge, IL: Irwin Professional Publishing.
Kilmann, R. H., Saxton, M. J., & Serpa, R. (1985a) Introduction: Five key issues in understanding
and changing culture. In R. H. Kilman, M.J. Saxton, & R. Serpa (Eds)., Gaining control of the
corporate culture (pp.1-16). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kimbrough, R. B., & Nunnery, M. Y. (1976). Educational administration: An introduction. New York:
Macmillan.
Kingdon, J. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
Knezevich, S. J. (1984). Administration of public education (4th ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Lane, J. E. (1995). The public sector: Concepts, models and approaches. London: Sage. Lasserre, P.
(1974). Planning through incrementalism. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 8, 129-134.
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(4),
498-518.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., & Steinback, R. (1999). Changing leadership for changing times. Buckingham,
England: Open University Press.
Leithwood, K., & Steinbach, R. (1994). The relationship between variations in patterns of school leadership
and group problem solving processes. In P. Hallinger, K. Leithwood, & J. Murphy (Eds.), Cognitive
perspectives on educational leadership (pp. 102-129). New York: Teachers College Press.
Levin, H. (1987). Accelerated schools for disadvantaged students. Educational Leadership, 44(6), 1921.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row.
Lewin, K. (1972). Quasi-stationary social equilibria and the problem of permanent change. In N.
Margulies & A.P. Raia, Organizational development: Values, process, and technology (pp. 65-70).
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Lewin, K. (1997). Resolving social conflicts and field theory in social science. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Lindahl, R. A. (2006). The role of organizational climate and culture in the school improvement process:
A review of the knowledge base. Education Leadership Review, 7(1), 19-29.
Lindahl, R. A. (1998). Taylor vs. Fayol: Current accreditation models reflect a significant shift in planning
models. Planning and Changing, 29(3), 164-172.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through.” Public Administration Review, 19, 79-99.
Louis, K. S., & Miles, M. (1990). Improving the urban high school: What works and why. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Louis, M. R. (1985). Sourcing workplace cultures: Why, when, and how. In R. H. Kilman, M.J. Saxton,
& R. Serpa (Eds)., Gaining control of the corporate culture (pp. 126-136 ). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Maehr, M. L., & Buck, R. M. (1993). Transforming school culture. In M. Shaskin & H. J. Walberg (Eds.),
Educational leadership and school culture I (pp. 40–60). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing
Company.
Mann, D. (1975). Policy decision-making in education. New York: Teachers College Press.
March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York: The Free Press.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1959). Organizations. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publications.
Massachusetts State Department of Education (1976). Force field analysis. Boston: Author. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 153190)
McCaskey, M. B. (1974). A contingency approach to planning: Planning with goals and planning without
goals. Academy of Management Journal, 17(2), 281-291.
41
Vol. 16, No. 2
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning: Reconceiving roles for planning, plans,
planners. New York: The Free Press.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper & Row.
Moody, P. E. (1983). Decision making: Proven methods for better decisions. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Morphet, E. L., Johns, R. L., & Reller, T. L. (1974). Educational organization and administration.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
National Study of School Evaluation (1997). School improvement: Focusing on student performance.
Schaumburg, IL: Author.
Newman, W. H. (1950). Administrative action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Newman, W. H., & Sumner, C. E., Jr. (1961). The process of management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Nir, A. (2000). The application trap in educational planning. Planning and Changing, 31(1&2), 70-83.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 USC 6301.
Orlosky, D. E., McCleary, L. E., Shapiro, A., & Webb, L. D. (1984). Educational administration today.
Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
Perry, E. A. (1997). Collaborative school improvement: An integrated model for educational leaders.
Paper presented at the China-U.S. Conference on Education. Beijing, People’s Republic of China.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 425411)
Phillips, S. R., & Berquist, W. H. (1987). Solutions: A guide to better problem solving. San Diego:
Pfeiffer and Company.
Pond, S. G., Armenakis, A. A., & Green, S. B. (1984). The importance of employee expectation in
organizational diagnosis. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 20, 167-180.
Prochaska, J. O., Redding, C. A., & Evers, K. (1997). The transtheoretical model of change. In K. Glanz,
F. M. Lewis, & B. K. Rimer (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and
practice ( pp. 60-84). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Prochaska, J. O., Velicer, W. F., Rossi, J. S., Goldstein, M. G., Marcus, B. H., Rakowski. W. Fiore,
C., Harlow, L. L., Redding, C. A., Rosenbloom, D., & Rossi, S. R. (1994). Stages of change and
decisional balance for 12 problem behaviors. Health Psychology, 13, 39-46.
Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83(4),
427-452.
Quinlivan-Hall, D., & Renner, P. (1990). In search of solutions. Vancouver, BC: PFR Training Associates
Limited.
Quinn, J. B. (1980a). Formulating strategy one step at a time. Journal of Business Strategy, 1, 42-63.
Quinn, J. B. (1980b). Strategies for change: Logical incrementalism. Homewood, IL: Richard D.
Irwin.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Rosenblum, S., & Louis, K. (1979). Stability and change: Innovation in an educational context.
Cambridge, MA: ABT Associates.
Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teachers’ workplace. New York: Longman.
Rossman, G. B., Corbett, H. D., & Firestone, W. A. (1988). Change and effectiveness in schools: A
cultural perspective. Albany: State University of New York.
Rousseau, D. M. (1990). Assessing organizational culture: The case for multiple methods. In B. Schneider
(Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 153-192). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sanders, S. G. (1977, Winter). Force field analysis: A functional management system. Planning and
Changing, 7(4), 143-147).
Sarason, S. (1996). Revisiting “The culture of the school and the problem of change.” New York:
Teachers College Press.
Sathe, V. (1985). How to decipher and change corporate culture. In R. H. Kilman, M.J. Saxton, & R.
Serpa (Eds.), Gaining control of the corporate culture (pp. 230-261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (1984, Summer). Suppose we took culture seriously. Academy of Management OD
Newsletter, 2ff.
Educational Planning
42
Schein, E. H. (1985a). How culture forms, develops, and changes. In R. H. Kilman, M.J. Saxton, & R.
Serpa (Eds.), Gaining control of the corporate culture (pp. 17-43). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (1985b). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (1999). The corporate culture survival guide: Sense and nonsense about culture change.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schmuck, R. A., & Schmuck, P. A. (1988). Group processes in the classroom (5th ed.). Dubuque, IA:
William C. Brown.
Scriven, M. (1991). Beyond formative and summative evaluation. In M. W. McLaughlin & D. C. Phillips
(Eds.), Evaluation and education: At quarter century. Ninetieth yearbook of the National Society
for the Study of Education, part II (pp. 19-66). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sears, J. B. (1950). The nature of the administrative process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York:
Doubleday/Currency.
Sergiovanni, T. J., Burlingame, M., Coombs, F. S., & Thurston, P. W. (1980). Educational governance
and administration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99118.
Simon, H. A. (1957). Administrative behavior (2nd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Simon, H. A. (1997). Models of bounded rationality: Empirically grounded economic reason. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Stratton, A. D. (1991). An approach to quality improvement that works (2nd ed.). Milwaukee: ASQC
Quality Books.
Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools: Linking school effectiveness and school improvement.
Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Swanson, A. D. (1974). Does systematic analysis have a role in educational decision-making? ScoioEconomic Planning Sciences, 8, 149-153.
Tanner, C. K., & Williams, E. J. (1981). Educational planning and decision making. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Thompson, K. R., & Luthans, F. (1990). Organizational culture: A behavioral perspective. In B. Schneider
(Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 319-344). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Urwick, L. F. (1952). Notes on the theory of organization. New York: American Management
Association.
Viability Corporate. (1994). Team works tool kit for team leaders and sponsors. Los Angeles: HR
Performance Development Division, Corporate Training and Development.
Wagner, R. K. (1994). Practical problem solving. In P. Hallinger, K. Leithwood, & J. Murphy (Eds.),
Cognitive perspectives on educational leadership (pp. 88-102). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Wildavsky, A. (1975). Budgeting: A comparative theory of budgetary processes. Boston: Little, Brown
and Company.
Wilkins, A. L., & Patterson, K. J. (1985). You can’t get there from here: What will make culture-change
projects fail. In R. H. Kilman, M. J. Saxton, & R. Serpa (Eds.), Gaining control of the corporate
culture (pp. 262-291). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
43
Vol. 16, No. 2
NO LEADER LEFT BEHIND:
PLANNING TO PREPARE EFFECTIVE EDUCATIONAL LEADERS IN THIS ERA OF
ACCOUNTABILITY
Peter R. Litchka
ABSTRACT
The release of A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) was a most significant event in creating a movement of
reform in education across America. This report was very critical of the status of education in America
and helped to spawn the standards and accountability movement in education, which is in existence
today, including standards and increased accountability for educational leaders. While there is much
research available on educational leadership and its evolution since A Nation at Risk was published,
there also appears to be a growing body of research that suggests a shortage of educational leaders is
occurring throughout the nation, both at the building and district level, in urban, suburban, and rural
districts, and in each geographic section of the nation. It is essential, therefore, that current and future
educational leaders have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to lead our schools and school districts
in a manner so that all children can achieve and be successful. It also means that the educational
community must be willing and able to provide the appropriate amount of support and resources, so
that there will be an adequate supply of excellent educational leaders now and in the future, and that
such leaders will not be left behind as victims of the stress and politics of the contemporary landscape
of educational leadership in America. This paper examines the depth of the shortage of educational
leaders, the reasons for this shortage, and offers a recommendation that reflective leadership be an
integral part of training, preparation, and support for present and future educational leaders.
INTRODUCTION
In School Leadership That Works (ASCD, 2005), Marzano, Waters, and McNulty suggested that,
“at no time in recent memory has the need for effective and inspired leadership been more pressing than
it is today. With the increasing needs in our society and in the workplace for knowledgeable, skilled,
and responsible citizens, the pressure on schools intensifies. The expectation that no child be left behind
in a world and economy will require everyone’s best is not likely to subside” (p. 123). It is essential,
therefore, that current and future educational leaders have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to
lead our schools and school districts in a manner so that all children can achieve and be successful. It
also means that the educational community must be willing and able to provide the appropriate amount
of support and resources, so that there will be an adequate supply of excellent educational leaders now
and in the future, and that such leaders will not be left behind as victims of the stress and politics of the
contemporary landscape of educational leadership in America.
The release of A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) was a most significant event in creating a movement
of reform in education across America. This report was very critical of the status of education in America
and helped to spawn the standards and accountability movement in education, which is in existence
today. As the demand for school accountability intensified throughout the years since the release of
this report, so did the development of state and national standards in areas of curriculum, assessment,
data-driven decision making, and improved achievement for all students. Subsequently, a significant
amount of pressure has been placed upon educational leaders to improve the quality of education, at
all levels and across all disciplines. Today, educational leaders are faced with the challenge of meeting
these demands for higher levels of student performance in an environment of increased accountability by
policy makers at federal, state, and local levels. While there is much research available on educational
leadership and its evolution since A Nation at Risk was published more than two decades ago, there also
appears to be a growing body of research that suggests the educational community will need to focus its
efforts on developing leaders with new and different types of skills to lead our schools. The Institute for
Educational Leadership, for example, states, “Schools are changing. . .no one can say for certain how the
schools of this new century will differ from those of the past century-but, there can be little doubt that
these schools will require different forms of leadership” (2000, p. 1).
Educational Planning
44
THE PROBLEM: A SHORTAGE OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERS
Just as there exists in literature support of the need for effective leadership in education, there is
also an abundant amount of research to suggest that the nation today is facing, and most likely well
into the future, a critical shortage of educational leaders. The Educational Research Service (1998), in
collaboration with the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) and the National
Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), found that there existed significant shortages of
qualified candidates for the principalship at the elementary, middle, and high school levels, and that this
shortage occurred in urban, suburban, and rural districts as well. In 1999, the New York City school
system began its new school year with 195 principal vacancies and another 144 schools being led by
interim or acting principals (AACTE, 2001). Also in 1999, 20 percent of the principals in Vermont either
resigned or retired (Hinton & Kastner, 2000), and the Institute for Educational Leadership, citing a study
completed by the University of Minnesota, predicted that 75% of all school principals in Minnesota
will resign or retire by 2010 (IEL, p. 5). Furthermore, the National Association of Elementary School
Principals in its NAESP Fact Sheet (2003) provided the following data:
A ten-year study from 1998 indicated that not only will principals be retiring earlier, but, more
than half plan to retire as soon as they are eligible, continuing the 40% turnover rate well into
the next decade.
More than 66% of NAESP members indicated that they will retire during the next decade,
according to a 2002 NAESP survey.
Of the responding principals in a New York state survey, 48% of the principals plan to retire by
2007. (NAESP, p. 1)
The shortage of potential school leaders also is occurring because, even those who are qualified
and have the appropriate certification, are simply not applying for leadership positions. Orozco (2001),
for example, found that less than 40% of qualified school administrators in California actually decided
to move into school leadership positions (p. 1).
To compound this issue of a shortage of building level leaders, The Southern Regional Education
Board (SREB) indicated in a recent study that the quantity of qualified leaders needed to replace those
who are leaving is decreasing and that finding leaders to help turn-around underperforming schools
is becoming an even greater challenge (Bottoms, 2003). The Wallace Foundation (2003) posited that
“districts and individual schools perceived as having the most challenging working conditions, the
largest concentration of impoverished students, the lower per pupil expenditures and lower salaries, find
it hardest to attract principal candidates” (pp. 4-5).
This shortage of educational leaders, however, is not limited to the schools only. There is very
strong evidence to suggest that school districts are and will be facing a shortage of superintendents as
well. Studies in the late 1980s and early 1990s began to suggest that such shortages were beginning
to occur and would continue well into the future. According to the American Association of School
Administrators (AASA), it is predicted that nearly 70% of superintendents are at or near the age of
retirement and that more than two-thirds of those surveyed were over the age of fifty (AASA, 2001).
There are more than 700 superintendents in New York State alone, and according to the New York
State Council of School Superintendents Snapshot V (NYSCOSS, 2004), “more than 50% of responding
superintendents indicated that they will retire by 2007 and 81% will retire by 2011” (p. 10). A study
completed by Auburn University’s Truman Pierce Institute found that “close to 90% of superintendents
and close to 70% of principals in Alabama plan on retiring by the end of 2007” (Salter, p. 1).
REASONS FOR THE SHORTAGE
Wanted: A miracle worker who can do more with less, pacify rival groups, endure chronic secondguessing, tolerate low levels of support, process large volumes of paper and work double shifts (75
nights a year out). He or she will have carte blanche to innovate, but cannot spend much money, replace
any personnel, or upset any constituency (R. Evans, Education Week, April 12, 1995).
Several themes occur throughout the review of the literature regarding why there exists a shortage
of educational leaders in our schools and school districts. While compensation is frequently mentioned,
45
Vol. 16, No. 2
other issues such as stress, time, politics of the position, and the ever-changing role and expectations of
being an educational leader in America today appear to be as prevalent. According to ERS (1998), the
top three reasons for teachers not wanting to become principals was the lack of compensation, stress,
and time. Boehlert and O’Connell (1999) found that experienced principals were reluctant to apply for
positions of higher authority due to their perceived lack of experience, inadequate compensation, the
amount of stress, and the amount of time needed to perform the duties of these positions. Research by
the Montana School Boards Association (1999) found that factors such as salary, stress, and time were
often mentioned by teachers as reasons for not wanting to enter school administration. Groff (2001)
found that the rise of charter schools and vouchers and the perception that the public is not generally
happy with education are factors that impede educators from becoming school leaders.
The perception that the job of the principal has changed over time has become a factor in why
some educators may not wish to take on the responsibilities of school leadership. Orozco (2001) posed
the subtle question: “School leadership--is it even doable?” (p. 1), citing issues such as the size of
schools; shortages of teachers; higher accountability; constant changes in curriculum, instruction, and
assessment; and, having less support staff. Lovely (2006) offered that the following factors help to
dissuade educators from becoming leaders: time and work overload, stress, salary, and interference from
inside and outside the organization. Natt (1999) pointed to the decreasing gap between principal and
teacher salaries, especially when time and amount of responsibilities are factored in. Moore (1999)
found that the reasons teachers are not intending to become principals is due to time constraints on
personal life, interference from both the educational bureaucracy, politics from outside groups, and the
ever-increasing demands on accountability. Warchol and Batts (2000) suggested that longer work days
and weeks are placing more stress on those who are presently in leadership positions at both the school
and district level, and can be a primary reason why potential leaders in education decide not to apply
for leadership positions. The Maryland Task Force on the Principalship (Maryland State Department of
Education, 2001) found that the job of the principal was perceived by many in the field of education as
being too stressful, underpaid, and requiring too much time.
The reasons for the shortage of superintendents are similar. Cunningham and Burdick (1999) found
that there exists a relatively low supply of candidates for the position of superintendent due to board
interference and micromanagement, time, stress, and the higher levels of accountability combined with
fewer amounts of resources. AASA (2000) found that the reasons for the superintendent shortages
included inadequate funding of education, too many demands on the time and efforts of the superintendent,
and the ever increasing mandates from local, state and national policy makers. Almost 90% of the
superintendents in New York State agreed that the job of superintendent was stressful, an increase of 7%
in only three years (NYSCOSS, 2004). According to this report, “the demands on the superintendency
are becoming more intense and causing superintendents to think about retirement sooner-rather than
later” (p. 28).
Superintendents are also leaving their positions earlier as well. Czaja and Harman (1999) found
that superintendents who voluntarily left early did so because of new job opportunities, family reasons,
and personal reasons, while those who left involuntarily did so because of problems with the school
board, union issues, and “moral and ethical discord” (p. 2). Cunningham and Burdick (1999) found
that the reasons for superintendents leaving their position was due to board interference, diminishing
financial resources for the school district, loneliness of the job, amount of time involved, and stress.
Salter (2000) found that the two main reasons that superintendents were leaving in Alabama were school
board micromanagement and time/stress. In “Career Crisis in the Superintendency” (AASA, 2000), it was
noted that 90% of the superintendents felt that districts should provide them with more help and support
to ensure their well being and success (p. 33). In unpublished research, Litchka and Polka (2006) found
that superintendents in Georgia and New York State felt very lonely, isolated, angry, and to a certain
extent depressed, when they were confronted by school boards that victimized them professionally and
personally.
Educational Planning
46
LEADING THROUGH REFLECTION: HELPING SCHOOL LEADERS PERSEVERE,
SURVIVE, AND SUCCEED
If you understand others, you are smart; if you understand yourself, you are enlightened.
-Lao Tzu, in Tao Te Ching
We had the experience but missed the meaning.
-T.S. Eliot, in Four Quarters
In 1996, the Interstate School Leaders Consortium (ISLLC), under the direction of the Council
of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), adopted a set of voluntary national standards for educational
leaders. Six standards were adopted, and for each standard a definition was provided as well as a listing
of knowledge, dispositions, and performances that educational leaders should possess. According to the
authors of the standards, “one intent of this document is to stimulate vigorous and thoughtful dialogue
about quality leadership among stakeholders in the area of school administration” (ISLLC, 1996, p.
iii.). Since 1996, more than 30 states have adopted these standards, professional development programs
have been aligned to these standards, university programs for leadership preparation have been revised
according to these standards, and many professional organizations across the nation are using these
standards to help support leadership development in education (Murphy, 2001).
While these standards guide the development of educational leaders in areas of visionary leadership,
instructional leadership, resource management, collaborative leadership, ethical leadership, and political/
community leadership, it is rare to find programs of study, staff development, or support programs that
address one of the most fundamental causes of the current and future shortage of educational leaders:
the stress and loneliness of being an educational leader, either at the school or district level, particularly
during these times of high accountability, resource depletion, and the interventionist politics of local
boards of education and interest groups. Consider what Miller (1984) implies with regards to leadership
and the Lone Ranger:
Problems were always solved the same way. The Lone Ranger and his faithful Indian companion
(read servant of somewhat darker complexion and lesser intelligence) come riding into town. The
Lone Ranger, with his mask and mysterious identity, background, and life-style, never becomes
intimate with those whom he will help. His power is partly in mystique. Within ten minutes the
Lone Ranger had understood the problem, identified who the bad guys are, and has set out to catch
them. He quickly outwits the bad guys, draws his gun, and has them behind bars. And then there
is always the wonderful scene at the end. The helpless victims are standing in front of their ranch
or in the town square marveling at how wonderful it is now that they have been saved, you hear
hoof beats, then the William Tell Overture and one person turns to another and asks, “But who was
that masked man?” And the other replies, “Why, that was the Lone Ranger!” We see Silver rear up
and with a hearty “Hi-yo Silver,” the Lone Ranger and his companion ride away. It was wonderful.
Truth, justice, and the American Way protected once again. What did we learn from this cultural
hero? Among the lessons that are now acted out daily by leaders are the following:
There is always a problem down on the ranch (read plant, office, building, etc.) and someone is
responsible.
Those who get themselves into difficulty are incapable of getting themselves out of it: “I’ll have
to go down or send someone down to fix it.”
In order to have the mystical powers need to solve problems; you must stay behind the mask.
Don’t let the ordinary folks get too close to you or your powers may be lost.
Problems get solved within discrete periodic time units and we have every right to expect them
to be solved decisively. (p. 34)
Thus, the issue may become, what happens to those principals and superintendents who believe
or are pressured into believing that they should live up to the standards of being a leader described by
Miller? If educational leaders are perceived by policy makers and the public as being someone who
must have all the answers, must resolve all of the problems (educationally and societal as well) quickly
and effectively, what happens to these leaders when they do not have the immediate answer or solutions?
Unfortunately, leaders may become confused, apprehensive, become mistake-prone. Then, adversity or
47
Vol. 16, No. 2
crisis may occur. According to Ackerman (2002),
School leadership can take a person from an inspired moment to a crisis in an instant. Things
happen unrelentingly, and a leader is expected to know or do something at the moment. Beneath
the surface tension, wounding is often felt at a deeper and more personal level, where a leader’s
decision, motive, and integrity are impugned by others. (p. xii)
Tirozzi (2004) referred to the profession of the principal a Profession in Crisis in which he stated:
The bottom line is that not only is it difficult to attract qualified candidates, but [also] the training
that candidates receive from administrator preparation programs is often inadequate, and ongoing
professional development is episodic at best. Many university programs for school administrates
are not closely aligned with the instructional and real-world demands principals face, and the use
of post certification development programs is the exception rather than the rule. (p. 43)
Patterson and Kelleher (2005) implied that such adversity is a “Metaphor of Storms”:
Significant and unplanned disruptions to expectations for how life will unfold-and the storms
of school leadership and life are also exceedingly varied in kind and intensity-predictability and
unpredictability. (pp. v-vi)
Murphy (1994) suggested this “role overload” (p. 24), which ultimately leads to a “personal sense
of loss for principals, a loss of control and a loss of professional identity” (pp. 24-25). While improving
the achievement of all students must remain the forefront of all that is to be done in education, including
that which is expected of educational leaders, it is imperative that the emotional health and well-being
of these leaders be addressed as well. The works of Argyris (1982), Schon (1983, 1984, 1987), Kolb
(1984), and Mezirow (1991, 1995) have contributed to the knowledge, understanding, and application
of learning, reflection, and action. These studies support the position that leaders in education that
have reflective thinking skills are more adept at recognizing that problems and difficult decisions as
solvable, providing a foundation for effective planning, and helping the leader address the issues of fear
and isolation when it comes to decision-making (Schon, 1983). Smith (1995) suggested that reviewing
events can enhance the practice of effective leadership by avoiding situations that were not handled
properly in the past, and will allow leaders as practitioners to deal with situations that may be unique
to leadership itself. Schon (1987) advocated the idea of reflective leadership in which the leader is
reflecting and being mentored throughout the entire process. The Institute for Educational Leadership
(IEL) posited, among other things, that:
School systems take a fresh approach to professional development, mentoring, coach and peer
support networks, and that the unprecedented, unnecessary, and unproductive stresses placed on
today’s principals need to be alleviated by reconfiguring and supporting the primary role of the
principal as leader for student learning. (pp. 12-13)
Ackerman (2002) advocated a new kind of leadership in which:
A conscious and skillful development of a supportive environment that learns to manage and adapt
to its problems collectively--that is a culture that truly depends on the knowledge and leadership
of the group, rather than always pointing a finger at someone else, especially and only toward the
leader, the school can be remolded to reflect a culture of shared responsibility of what happens, as
well as what does not happen. (p. 131)
Lovely (2004) proposed a number of ways in which the principalship can be improved, including
the position that:
The work of principals must be valued and recognized at every level of the school district.
Socialization activities to help principals combat job isolation and overload are important. Principals
need structured opportunities to reflect upon problems and ponder solutions. (p. 4)
PLANNING IMPLICATIONS
Reflection is often used as a method by which to mentor and support leaders. Reflection is essential
for the leader to think about and improve one’s leadership abilities. In particular, reflective thinking
will allow educational leaders to identify the gaps in their knowledge base and practices, including but
not limited to decision-making and problem solving. Beatty (2000) reports that there exists a climate of
“denial of emotionality” (p. 335) within the educational leadership environment, and this can have the
Educational Planning
48
effect of having leaders “limiting the potential for professional renewal and synergy” (p. 335). While
it might be that reflective practices may be natural in all humans to a certain degree, perhaps a more
formal understanding and application of reflective leadership may help to alleviate the stress and anxiety
of being a leader in today’s educational environment. Gosling and Mintzberg (2004) proposed, “ Study
after study has shown that leaders work at an unrelenting pace, that their activities are characterized
by brevity, variety, and discontinuity, and that they are strongly oriented to action, and actually dislike
reflective activities” (p. 151). Thus, deeper questions may need to be posed: Do educational leaders
have the knowledge and understandings, skills, and dispositions to be able to adequately reflect? And
if so, do they have the time, support, and resources to use reflection to improve their leadership skills
and abilities? Researchers such as Ackerman, Bolman, and Deal, Greenleaf, Patterson, Sergiovanni, and
Wheatley are but a few who suggest the importance of reflection and reflective leadership. Reflective
practices involve the thoughtful processing of how individuals, teams, and organizations carry out their
work. This approach makes mindful the impact of relationships with the children and families served by
our programs, within all levels of the organization and with collaborating partners within our communities.
Organizations and teams employing the use of reflective practices create a safe environment in which to
share, reflect, support, and provide information, and make decisions. Staff members listen, observe, find
capacities, question, and share multiple perspectives. 
Thus, the issue not the lack of available research and support mechanisms to help our educational
leaders cope with the emotional stress of being a principal or superintendent, but how often are leaders-both current and aspiring--exposed to the theories and applications of being reflective and of being a
reflective leader. To meet the challenge of providing educational leaders with the knowledge, dispositions,
and performances necessary to be reflective leaders, it is recommended that the following be considered
for planning purposes:
1. Reflective leadership is identified as a critical component of the institution’s framework for
leadership preparation.
2. Reflective leadership is integrated within both the scope and sequence of the institution’s
leadership preparation program.
3. The curriculum is based upon current research, applications of reflective leadership, and
research and practice that are linked.
4. An integral component of reflective leadership training should include practical applications in
the “real world” environment of contemporary educational leadership.
5. The individual needs of educational leaders are addressed through continuous professional
development activities, with the institution making a concerted and continuous effort to “reach
out” to practicing educational leaders. Training in reflective leadership cannot be a “one
time occurrence” that may occur in one course or workshop, but on a consistent basis with
reinforcement and support.
Loyola College in Maryland has initiated a process of infusing reflective leadership in its
graduate programs in the areas of business, education, and pastoral counseling. In training educators,
including those for leadership positions, the education department has adopted three learning outcomes:
competence, conscience, and compassion, and within these, refers to reflective practice and the care and
development of the whole person (Cura personalis). While reflective practices are found throughout
the education department’s curriculum, the concept of reflective leadership has not been formalized.
Thus, the initiative being undertaken has the opportunity to have reflective leadership practices put
into effect both within the department and across the college as well. Facilitating reflective thinking
can help to reduce isolation and improve the leadership skills of school leaders. It is anticipated that
this collaborative effort will allow the college not only to meet its mission of “inspiring students to
learn, lead, and service in a diverse and changing world” (2006, p. 6), but also to play an integral part
of resolving one of the issues that is causing the shortage of principals and superintendents across the
nation--stress and emotional toll of educational leadership in contemporary America.
Bolman and Deal (1995) suggested that: “Leaders who have lost touch with their own soul, who
are confused and uncertain about their core values and beliefs inevitably lose their way or sound an
uncertain trumpet” (p. 11). It is critical, therefore, that if principals and superintendents are to provide
49
Vol. 16, No. 2
the necessary leadership to ensure that no child is left behind, then it is just as critical that those same
leaders are provided with opportunities, resources, and support to better understand themselves and
the dimensions of educational leadership in the 21st century. Hopefully, the theories, practices, and
application of reflective leadership will help to resolve the shortage of educational leaders and also ensure
that no educational leader--now or in the future--is ever left behind. As Blackburn (1999) suggested,
“Reflection matters because it is continuous with practice. How you think about what you are doing
affects how you do it, or whether you do it at all” (p. 7).
REFERENCES
Ackerman, R., & Maslin-Ostrowski, P. (2002). The wounded leader: How real leadership emerges in
times of crisis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ackerman, R., & Maslin-Ostrowski, P. (2002). Seeking a cure for leadership in our lifetime. Paper
presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.
Ackerman, R., Donaldson, G., & Van der Bogert, R. (1996). Making sense as a school leader. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Blackburn, S. (1999). Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
Boehlert, L., & O’Connell, R. (1999). Where are the school leaders for the new millennium? A study of
reasons cited by incumbent administrators who have decided not to apply for another administrative
position. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Research Association. Montreal, Quebec,
Canada.
Beatty, B. (2000). The emotions of educational leadership: Breaking the silence. International Journal
of Leadership in Education, 3(4), 331-357.
Beck, L., & Murphy J. (1993) Understanding the principalship: Metaphorical themes 1920s-1990s.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1995). Leading with soul: An uncommon journey of spirit. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Cooper, B., Fusarelli, L., & Carella, V. (2000). Career crisis in the superintendency? Arlington, VA:
American Association of School Administrators.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (1996). Interstate school leaders licensure consortium: Standards
for school leaders. Washington, DC.
Cunningham, W., & Burdick, G. (1999). Empty offices. The American School Board Journal, 186(12),
25-30.
Czaja, M., & Harman, M. (1999). Superintendent exiting in Texas: A challenge for rural and small
districts? Retrieved October 27, 2006 from http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~iejll/volume3/czaja. html
Dilworth, M., & Thomas, I. (2001). PK-12 Educational Leadership and Administration. Washington,
DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Donaldson, G. (2001). Cultivating leadership in schools: Connecting people, purpose and practice.
Teachers College Press.
Edmonson, S., & Fischer A. (2002). Aspiring administrators: Promoting reflective leadership practices.
Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
San Antonio, TX.
Educational Research Service. (1998). Is there a shortage of qualified candidates for openings in the
principalship? Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
Educational Research Services. (2000). The principal, keystone of a high-achieving school: Attracting
and keeping the leaders we need. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
Eliot, T. S. (1943). Four Quarters. New York: Harcourt.
Evans, R. (1995, April 12). Getting real about leadership. Education Week, 14(29), 36.
Fullan, M. (Ed.). (1997). The challenge of school change. Arlington, IL: IRI/SkyLight Training and
Publishing.
Gosling, J., & Mintzberg, H. (2004). Reflect yourself. HR Magazine. Retrieved October 30, 2006 from
http://www.shrm.org/hrmagazine/articles/0904/094/tools.asp
Educational Planning
50
Groff, F. (2005). Who will lead? The principal shortage. Washington, DC: National Conference of
State Legislatures.
Hinton, L., & Kastner, J. (2000). Vermont’s Principal Shortage. Retrieved October 24, 2006 from http://
www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/vermonts_principalshortage.htm
Institute for Educational Leadership. (2000). Leadership for student learning: Reinventing the
Principalship. Washington, DC.
Kelley, C., & Peterson, K. (2002). The work of principals and their preparation. The Principal Challenge.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Knapp, M., Copeland, M., & Talbert, J. (2003). Leading for Learning: Reflective tools for school and
district leaders. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Lao-Tzu (2005). Tao Te Ching. New York: Barnes and Noble.
Litchka, P., & Polka, W. (2006). The professional victim syndrome: An analysis of contemporary
superintendent issues and resiliency factors. Unpublished manuscript. Georgia Southern University,
Statesboro, GA.
Loyola College in Maryland. (2006). Graduate catalogue 2006-07. Baltimore, MD: Loyola College in
Maryland.
Maryland State Department of Education. Maryland task force on the principalship. (2001). Maryland
State Department of Education. Baltimore, MD.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Miller, L. (1984). American spirit-Visions of a new corporate culture. New York: Warner Books.
Mitgang, L. (2003). Beyond the pipeline: Getting the principals we need, where they are needed the
most. New York: Wallace Foundation.
Montana School Boards Association. (1999). A study of the shortage of school administrators in
Montana. Helena, Montana: Montana School Boards Association.
Moore, D. (1999). Where have all the principals gone? (ERIC Document Reproduction Services: ED
429 368). Arlington, VA: Educational Research Services.
Murphy, J. (1994). Transformational change and the evolving role of the principal: Early empirical
evidence. In J. Murphy & K. Louis (Eds.), Reshaping the principalship: Insights from
transformational reform efforts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Murphy, J. (2001). The changing face of leadership preparation. Retrieved October 18, 2006 from:
http://www.aasa.org/publication/saarticledetail.cfm?ItemNumber=3220
National Association of Elementary School Principals (2003). NAESP: Fact sheet on the principal
shortage. Retrieved October 25, 2006 from: http://www.naesp.org/
National Center for Policy Analysis. (1999). A Shortage of Principals. Retrieved October 22, 2006 from
http://www.ncpa.org;pi/edu/pd010899e.htm
National Commission of Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Natt, J. (2000). Superintendents see shortage of applicants for top spots as a
serious crisis. Leadership News. Arlington, VA: American Association of School
Administrators.
New York State Council of School Superintendents. (2004). Snapshot V. Albany, NY.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (2000). Is there a shortage of effective school leaders?
Learning Points Associates.
Patterson, J. (2000). The anguish of leadership. Arlington, VA: American Association of School
Administrators.
O’Neill, K., Fry, B., & Bottoms, G. (2003). Good principals are the key to successful schools: Six
strategies to prepare more good principals. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Educational
Board.
Orozco, L. (2001). Saving the new endangered species: The role of higher education in the preparation
and success of school leaders. Retrieved October 24, 2006 from: http:// hdcs.fullerton.edu/faculty/
orozco/endangered.html
51
Vol. 16, No. 2
Patterson, J., & Kelleher, P. (2005). Resilient School Leaders. Arlington, VA: American Association of
School Administrators.
Pulley, M., & Wakefield, M. (2001). Building resiliency. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative
Leadership.
Reeves, D. (2006). The learning leader. Arlington, VA: American Association of School
Administrators.
Salter, S. (2000). Empty chairs: Alabama’s Leadership Shortage. Retrieved October 27, 2006 from:
http://www.theaasb.org/asb.crm?DocID=375
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, C. (1995). Evaluating nursing care: Reflection in practice. Professional Nurse. 10(11), 723-724.
Tirozzi, G. (2004). Repainting the canvas: The changing artistry of the principalship. Washington, DC:
Alliance for Excellent Education.
Educational Planning
52
INVITATION TO SUBMIT MANUSCRIPTS
The editor of Educational Planning, a refereed journal of educational planning issues, invites
the submission of original manuscripts for publication consideration. Educational Planning
is the official journal of the International Society for Educational Planning. The audience of
the journal includes national and provincial/state planners, university faculty, school district
administrators and planners, and other practitioners associated with educational planning.
The purpose of the publication is to serve as a meeting place for scholar-researcher and
the practitioner-educator through the presentation of articles that have practical relevance to
current issues and that broaden the knowledge base of the discipline. Educational Planning
disseminates the results of pertinent educational research, presents contemporary ideas for
consideration, and provides general information to assist subscribers with their professional
responsibilities.
Manuscripts preferred for inclusion are those from practitioners, reports of empirical research,
expository writings including analyses of topical problems, or case studies. Unsolicited
manuscripts are welcomed.
The following criteria have been established for the submission of manuscripts.
STYLE: All formatting should adhere strictly to the current guidelines set in the Publication
Manual of the American Psychological Association.
LENGTH: The manuscript, including all references, figures or illustrations, charts, and/or
graphs, should not exceed 20 pages. In addition, an Abstract (between 150-500 words on
a separate sheet of paper) describing the focus of the manuscript should be included at the
beginning of the manuscript.
WORD PROCESSING: SINGLE-SPACE all text using TIMES NEW ROMAN with a 10
point type. Headings and sub-headings should be in ARIEL with a 10 point type. Provide
1.0 inch margins top and bottom, and 1.5 inch left and right, with 1.0 inch header and 1.0
inch footer. The body of the manuscript must be no wider than 5 ½ inches to fit the paper.
Lengthily tables, drawings, and charts or graphs should be scaled to the dimensions given and
should preferably be camera-ready.
FORM of SUBMISSION: Send the manuscript to the Editor electronically in Microsoft
Word as an attachment to an email. The email address is: [email protected]
The manuscript should include the following:
Title Page
Title of the manuscript
Date of Submission
Author(s) name, mailing address, telephone number, email address, and fax number
Biographical sketch not to exceed 75 words
Abstract
An abstract not to exceed 500 words on a separate page
Body of the Manuscript
Text of the manuscript not to exceed 20 pages, including references, tables, etc.
If the manuscript does not meet the guidelines exactly, it will NOT be reviewed and will
be returned to the author.
Author(s) name or any other identifying information should not be included on the abstract or
the manuscript. Authors are responsible for copyright clearance and accuracy of information
presented and submission implies that the same manuscript has not been submitted t other
publications.
Editorial reviewers and editors will review all manuscripts. Points of view are those of
the individual authors and not necessarily of ISEP.
Please send manuscripts to: Dr. Linda K. Lemasters – [email protected]
For more information about ISEP go to: www.isep.info
53
Vol. 16, No. 2
Thirty-Seventh Annual Conference of the
International Society for Educational Planning
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
October 18-20, 2007
Conference Registration $350.00 USD
Includes:
Conference Registration & Membership
Breakfasts
Luncheons
Journal Subscriptions
To Register Visit: www.cpe.vt.edu/isep
For further information contact:
Dr. Glen I. Earthman, Conference Chair
[email protected]
Conference Hotel
Crown Plaza Hotel
Single/Double Rooms - $124.00
Telephone: 800-5567827
www.msp-northstar.crowneplaza.com
Mention ISEP
Educational Planning
54
ISEP
MEMBERSHIP SUBSCRIPTION FORM
(Please Print)
Name: LastFirstMiddle
Organization/Department Mailing Address: CityProvince/State
Postal CodeCountry
Email
Fees: Professional Membership and Subscription to Educational
Planning = $100.00 USD
Student Membership and subscription to Educational
Planning = $50.00 USD
Payment by check, money order, or Purchase Order required
with application.
RETURN MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION AND
PAYMENT TO:
Dr. Glen I. Earthman
Secretary/Treasurer, ISEP
2903 Ashlawn Drive
Blacksburg, VA 24060-8101
USA
55
Vol. 16, No. 2